^^  OF  P^'f%  . 

4.3.18  ^ 


aop\i  I 


THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 


THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 


APR   3  1918 


WILLIAM  BANCROFT  HILL,  D.D. 

Frederick  Weyerhaeuser  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  Vassar  College 


^i5.S!CALSt\>Vi 


■^ 


New  York  Chicago  Toronto 

Fleming    H.    Revell    Company 

JyONDON  AND  EDINBURGH 


si  3 


Copyright,  191 7,  by 
FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 


New  York:  158  Fifth  Avenue 
Chicago:  Vj  N.  Wabash  Ave. 
Toronto :  25  Richmond  St.,  W. 
London :  21  Paternoster  Square 
Edinburgh:     100    Princes    Street 


i    .         '  '•  a  I-  M 


if!; 


TO 

MY   DEAR   WIFE 


PREFACE 

EVERY  student  of  the  life  of  Christ  has  at  hand, 
in  the  four  Gospels,  practically  all  the  original 
sources.  This  is  a  most  unusual  advantage ;  and,  since 
the  first  principle  of  historical  research  is  to  go  back 
to  the  sources,  any  textbook  that  diverts  his  atten- 
tion from  the  Gospels  or  serves  as  a  substitute  for 
them  is  to  be  condemned.  Nevertheless,  to  limit 
a  student's  knowledge  to  what  he  himself  can  discover 
in  the  Gospels  is  like  limiting  the  student  of  chemistry 
to  his  own  unaided  investigations  in  the  laboratory. 
Some  acquaintance  with  what  the  great  company  of 
New  Testament  scholars  have  discovered  is  needful  as 
a  guide  in  personal  study,  and  must  be  furnished  the 
student  along  with  the  text.  The  difficult  problem  is 
to  keep  the  textbook  from  usurping  the  place  of  the 
text. 

While  a  Life  of  Christ  has  for  its  purpose  to  aid 
the  student  in  his  study  of  the  Gospels,  it  should  not 
undertake  to  be  a  substitute  for  a  commentary  on  them ; 
the  detailed  discussion  of  each  incident  and  the  exe- 
gesis of  each  obscure  passage  belong  to  later  and  more 
minute  study.  Nor  should  it  take  the  place  of  a  Bible 
dictionary ;  a  mass  of  information  about  the  geography, 
flora,  fauna,  history,  politics  and  religion  of  Palestine 
in  the  first  century  may  bury  the  biography  out  of 
sight,  and  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  book.  Least  of  all 
should  it  be  a  series  of  sermons  on  the  words  and  deeds 

7 


8  PREFACE 

of  Jesus ;  the  homiletic  instinct,  however  praiseworthy, 
is  a  poor  guide  in  historical  study. 

The  average  student  has  more  or  less  knowledge 
(sometimes  surprisingly  less)  of  the  separate  incidents 
in  the  life  of  Christ;  but  he  has  little  conception  of 
their  relation  to  each  other,  of  their  place  in  the  history 
as  a  whole,  and  of  their  significance  and  importance. 
His  store  of  information  is  a  confused  heap  of  discon- 
nected details.  This  is  due  partly  to  the  character  of 
the  Gospels  themselves,  in  that  they  are  not  a  his- 
tory but  a  collection  of  precious  memorabilia,  and  still 
more  to  the  unsystematic,  disjointed  way  in  which 
the  Gospels  are  usually  read  and  studied.  What  he 
needs  is  aid  in  bringing  order  out  of  such  chaos.  His 
textbook  should  help  him  to  recognize  the  main  periods 
and  great  turning  points  in  the  life  of  Christ,  to  deter- 
mine the  place  and  connection  of  the  various  inci- 
dents, and  especially  to  answer  two  most  important 
questions,  What  did  Jesus  attempt  to  do?  and  What 
did  he  claim  to  be  ? 

The  number  of  Lives  of  Christ  written  within  the 
past  fifty  years  is  so  great  as  to  remind  us  of  the  clos- 
ing words  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  "  I  suppose  even  the 
world  itself  would  not  contain  the  books  that  should 
be  written."  The  best  of  these  Lives  is  not  altogether 
satisfactory, — this  furnishes  incentive  to  write  an- 
other; the  worst  is  not  altogether  worthless, — this 
furnishes  consolation  in  offering  the  present  one.  The 
necessary  preliminary  discussion  of  the  nature  and 
value  of  the  gospel  records  was  undertaken  by  the 
writer  in  an  earlier  volume,  his  Introduction  to  the 
Life  of  Christ.  In  it  will  be  found  the  reasons 
for  basing  the  present  book  on  all  four  of  the 
Gospels   instead   of   restricting   it   to   the    Synoptics 


PREFACE  9 

or  even  to  the  sources  that  lie  behind  them.  With  due 
recognition  of  the  pecuHar  character  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  he  is  by  no  means  ready  to  pronounce  it  of  no 
historical  value;  and  with  full  appreciation  of  the  at- 
tempts to  recover  the  earliest  account,  written  or  oral, 
of  what  Jesus  said  and  did,  he  fails  to  be  convinced  that 
this  should  supersede  all  later  accounts  as  necessarily 
presenting  the  truest  picture  of  the  Master. 

W.  B.  H. 

Vassar  College, 

Poughkeepsie ,  N.  Y. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 
I. 


/ 


II. 


III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

yVll. 

VIII. 

IX. 

~X. 

XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 

XIV. 

XV. 

XVI. 

XVII. 

xvni. 

XIX. 


Palestine  in  the  Time  of  Christ 

The  Religious  Ideas  of  the  Jews 

The  Birth  of  Jesus  . 

The  Years  at  Nazareth  . 

John  the  Baptist 

The  Baptism  of  Jesus 

The  Temptation  in  the  Wilderness 

The  Final  Preparation     . 

The  Judean  Ministry 

The  Galilean  Ministry   . 

The  Miracles  of  Jesus     . 

The  Kingdom  of  God  . 

The  Border  Ministry 

Jesus  the  Messiah 

The  Peraean  Ministry     . 

The  Passion  Week     . 

The  Last  Supper  and  Gethsemane 

The  Trial  and  Crucifixion 

The  Resurrection 

Index      ...... 


13 

34 
44 
57 
72 
82 

91 
100 
no 
127 

154 
174 
190 
213 
232 

251 

265 

283 
299 

327 


THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST 

NO  figure  in  history  is  so  free  from  the  limita- 
tions of  race,  place  and  time  as  Jesus  Christ. 
Though  a  Jew,  He  seems  equally  a  Gentile;  though 
an  Oriental,  He  is  Lord  of  the  Western  world;  though 
born  in  the  days  of  Herod  the  king  He  dominates 
the  present  age.  Yet  to  understand  His  life  and  teach- 
ings we  must  make  ourselves  well  acquainted  with 
Palestine  of  the  first  century.  We  cannot  fully  appre- 
ciate what  He  did,  until  we  know  what  the  Jews  of 
His  time  expected  Him  to  do;  and  we  cannot  rightly 
interpret  what  He  said,  until  we  know  the  thoughts 
and  feelings  of  the  men  to  whom  He  spoke.  Had 
Jesus  lived  in  a  diflFerent  environment.  His  mission 
and  His  message  would  have  been  the  same ;  but  their 
outward  form, — His  acts  and  His  words, — would  have 
been  changed  to  correspond  to  it. 

We  must,  therefore,  begin  the  study  of  the  life  of 
Christ  by  placing  before  ourselves  the  Palestine  of 
His  day.  Fortunately  the  material  for  doing  this  is 
abundant.  Interest  in  the  subject  has  caused  scholars 
to  collect  every  least  item  of  information;  and  we 
have  volumes  devoted  entirely  to  the  political,  social 
and  religious  conditions  in  which  Jesus  passed  His 

13 


14.  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST, 

earthly  life.     Only  an  outline  of  the  subject  can  be 
given  here. 

I.    Political  Conditions. 

In  the  whole  period  of  Jewish  history  from  the 
Exile  to  the  birth  of  Christ, — a  period  longer  than 
^_  from  the  discovery  of  America  to  the  present  day, — 
the  Age  of  the  Maccabees, ^162-63  b.c,  was  the  only 
time  when  the  Jews  possessed  national  independence. 
For  a  little  while'fhe'glory  of  the  days  when  David 
and  Solomon  ruled  a  strong,  united  people  seemed  to 
return,  and  Palestine  was  able  to  play  an  important 
part  in  the  troubled  politics  of  Western  Asia.  But 
the  later  Maccabean  kings  were  feeble  rulers ;  the  strife 
of  religious  sects  divided  and  weakened  the  nation; 
and  Rome  was  steadily  extending  its  dominion.  The 
end  came  when  Pompey  the  Great  was  invited  to 
arbitrate  between  rival  claimants,  and  settled  their 
disputes  by  taking  the  throne  for  his  own  nation. 
A  Maccabee  still  was  allowed  to  rule  as  a  dependent 
\  of  Rome  and  without  the  title  of  king;  but  the  real 
governor,  the  power  behind  the  throne,  was  a  wily 
Idumaean  named  Antipater  or,  in  its  abbreviated 
form,  Antipas,  the  founder  of  the  famous  Herodian 
family.  The  Idumaeans  were  descendants  of  the 
ancient  Edomites,  and  now  occupied  the  extreme  south- 
ern portion  of  Palestine.  They  had  recently  been  con- 
quered by  the  Maccabees  and  incorporated  into  the 
Jewish  kingdom;  so  nominally  Antipater  was  a  Jew, 
,  but  the  old  Jewish  hatred  of  the  Edomites  still  con- 
tinued and  made  him  detested.  His  power,  however, 
depended  upon  the  favor  of  Rome  which  he  always 
managed  to  keep,  even  to  the  extent  of  gaining  Roman 
citizenship  for  himself  and,  therefore,  for  all  his  de- 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST      15 

scendants.  After  his  death,  43  b.c,  there  arose  in 
Palestine  a  fierce  struggle  of  opposing  powers  to  which 
the  Romans  could  pay  no  attention  because  they  were 
busy  with  the  dissensions  that  followed  the  murder  of 
Julius  Caesar.  Accordingly,  a  son  of  Antipater,  Herod, 
who  was  in  the  thick  of  the  Jewish  troubles,  went  to 
Rome,  40  B.C.,  and  gained  permission  to  win  by  arms 
the  Jewish  throne  for  himself.  It  took  him  three  years 
to  crush  his  enemies;  then  he  reigned,  more  like  an 
ally  of  Rome  than  like  a  subject,  until  his  death  in 
the  spring  of  4  B.C. 

Herod  in  many  ways  deserved  his  title,  the  Great, 
and  has  well  been  called  "  the  brain  of  the  East." 
To  keep  his  throne, — which  was  the  central  purpose 
of  his  life, — was  a  task  demanding  marked  ability. 
On  the  one  hand,  he  must  retain  the  favor  of  the  Ro- 
mans, and  make  this  frontier  kingdom  strong  and 
loyal;  otherwise  he  would  be  deposed.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  must  either  propitiate  or  overawe  the  Jews; 
otherwise  they  would  rise  in  rebellion  and  drive  him 
out.  The  Romans  were  more  easily  managed  than  the 
Jews.  Herod  did  a  great  deal  for  his  people,  feeding 
them  at  his  own  expense  in  time  of  famine,  extermi- 
nating bands  of  robbers  and  foreign  marauders,  mak- 
ing Caesarea  into  a  good  seaport,  extending  and  pro- 
tecting the  frontiers,  and  erecting  magnificent  buildings 
all  over  Palestine.  He  also  looked  after  the  welfare 
of  the  Jews  in  all  parts  of  the  Roman  empire,  insisting 
that  they  be  treated  with  respect  and  enjoy  equal  rights 
with  other  nationalities.  Reall3%  the  benefits  he  be- 
stowed would  seem  a  sure  means  of  winning  the  affec- 
tion of  his  subjects;  but  his  motive  in  all  was  purely 
selfish,  and  the  Jews  knew  this.  Moreover,  their  recent 
independence  made  them  restless  under  any  foreign 


16  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

yoke,  however  light;  and  that  an  Idumaean  and  Ro- 
man citizen  should  sit  on  the  throne  of  David  seemed 
sacrilege.  The  greater  the  glory  and  success  of  such 
a  king,  the  more  his  rule  would  be  resented.  Herod,  in 
turn,  disliked  the  Jews  and  despised  their  religion; 
at  heart  he  was  a  heathen.  For  a  time  he  took  pains 
to  conceal  his  real  attitude  and  to  conciliate  the  devout ; 
but  later  on,  when  he  felt  firmly  established  and  able 
to  suppress  any  uprising,  he  seemed  to  find  a  malicious 
pleasure  in  outraging  the  religious  feelings  of  the  Jews, 
and  then  punishing  severely  the  uprising  that  invariably 
followed. 

Herod's  private  life  was  made  wretched  by  the 
mutual  jealousies  and  strifes  of  his  numerous  wives 
and  children,  who  again  and  again  filled  him  with  the 
suspicion  that  those  whom  he  loved  most  were  plot- 
ting against  him.  At  last  he  reached  a  point  where 
he  trusted  no  one,  and  where  from  alternations  of  vio- 
lent rage  and  remorse  he  was  almost  insane.  One 
after  another,  his  children  were  put  to  death,  until 
Augustus  dryly  remarked,  "  It  is  better  to  be  Herod's 
swine  than  his  sons."  In  the  bloodshed  which  stained 
the  close  of  his  reign,  the  murder  of  some  babes 
at  Bethlehem  was  such  a  minor  incident  that  we 
are  not  surprised  to  find  it  unrecorded  except  in 
Matthew. 

By  his  will,  which  the  Roman  government  con- 
firmed, Herod  divided  his  kingdom  between  three  sons, 
giving  Judea,  Samaria  and  Idumaea  to  Archelaus; 
Galilee  and  Peraea  to  Herod  Antipas;  and  the  region 
northeast  of  the  lake  of  Galilee  to  Philip.  The  title 
of  Archelaus  was  ethnarch,  and  of  the  other  two  sons 
tetrach;  but  the  terms  mean  much  the  same  as  king 
'(in  fact,  Herod  Antipas  is  called  king  in  Mark  6: 14  f. 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST     17 

and  Matt.  14:9);  and  the  sons  had  about  the  same 
authority  as  their  father,  and  stood  in  about  the  same 
relation  to  the  Roman  government.  PhiHp  was  the 
best  of  them,  and  ruled  quietly  and  justly  until  his 
death,  34  a.d.  At  the  foot  of  Mount  Hermon,  where 
the  Jordan  takes  its  rise  in  what  was  once  a  famous 
cave  and  heathen  shrine,  he  built  a  city,  and  called  it 
Caesarea  in  honor  of  the  emperor,  the  name  Philippi 
being  added  to  distinguish  it  from  the  more  important 
Caesarea  on  the  seacoast.  Comparatively  few  of  his 
subjects  were  Jews,  and  he  plays  no  part  in  the  gospel 
story.  Herod  Antipas  was  much  like  his  father, 
only  less  able  and  more  sly :  "  that  fox "  is  what 
Jesus  called  him.  His  capital  was  at  first  Sepphoris 
and  later  Tiberias,  a  city  built  by  him  during  Jesus' 
public  ministry.  His  marriage  with  Herodias,  which 
John  the  Baptist  condemned,  brought  on  a  series  of 
misfortunes,  ending  with  his  banishment  by  Caligula 
about  39  A.D.  Archelaus  ruled  so  wretchedly  that 
Augustus  deposed  him  in  6  a.d.,  and  changed  his 
realm  into  the  imperial  province  of  Judea,  governed 
by  a  procurator  as  the  representative  of  the  emperor. 
There  was  a  series  of  these  procurators  in  which 
Pontius  Pilate,  26-36  a.d.,  was  the  fifth.  Their  gov- 
ernment must  be  more  fully  described. 

Though  the  emperor  had  taken  direct  possession  of 
Judea,  little  change  was  made  in  the  policy  of  leaving 
the  Jews  to  govern  themselves  as  far  as  possible;  in 
fact,  they  had  more  independence  than  when  under  the 
Herods.  The  procurator  dwelt  at  Caesarea,  but  came 
to  Jerusalem  on  occasions,  especially  at  the  feasts 
when  the  city  was  crowded  and  there  was  danger  of 
riots.  His  residence  in  Jerusalem  was  the  palace  built 
by  Herod  the  Great  on  Mount  Zion.     To  maintain 


18  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

order  he  had  an  army,  one  cohort  of  which  was  sta- 
tioned at  Jerusalem.  The  army  officers  seem  to  have 
been  worthy  Romans;  the  common  soldiers  were  re- 
cruited in  the  province;  and  as  Jews  were  exempt 
from  military  service  because  they  had  religious 
scruples  against  fighting  on  the  Sabbath,  the  recruits 
were  largely  Samaritans,  thus  making  the  army  doubly 
unpopular  with  the  Jews. 
J^  The  Romans,  of  course,  imposed  taxes,  which  were 
used  for  the  expenses  of  the  government  and  the  im- 
provement of  the  province,  only  the  surplus  being  sent 
to  Rome.  A  land  tax  and  a  poll  tax  were  definitely 
fixed  and  collected  by  imperial  officials,  probably 
through  the  agency  of  the  Sanhedrin.  The  customs 
were  farmed  out  to  the  highest  bidders.  These  men 
and  their  underlings  collected  as  much  as  they  could 
squeeze  out  of  the  people,  and  kept  as  their  profits 
all  above  the  amount  they  had  bid.  Evidently  there 
was  every  inducement  to  extortion;  and  though  the 
collectors  ("publicans")  often  were  Jews,  they  were 
despised,  hated  and  classed  with  robbers. 

The  right  to  coin  money  was  jealously  guarded  by 
ancient  rulers,  and  seldom  entrusted  to  subject  nations. 
The  Maccabees  as  independent  sovereigns  possessed 
that  right,  and  minted  copper  coins, — possibly  also  a 
few  silver  coins.  The  Jewish  copper  coinage  was  con- 
tinued under  the  Herods  and  the  procurators.  The 
most  common  silver  coin  in  the  time  of  Christ  was  the 
Roman  denarius, — the  "  penny  "  of  the  King  James' 
New  Testament, — whose  value  today  would  be  about 
twenty  cents;  but  foreign  silver  coins  of  all  sorts  were 
in  circulation  or  found  their  way  to  the  money 
changer's  table.  For  the  payment  of  temple  dues  "  the 
shekel  of  the  sanctuary  "  was  required,  which  probably 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST      19 

was  a  Phoenician  silver  coin  worth  about  sixty-seven 
cents. 

The  procurator,  as  has  been  said,  allowed  the  Jews 
a  large  measure  of  self-government.  Each  commu- 
nity had  its  council  (sanhedrin)  made  up  of  leading 
men  who  managed  affairs  and  settled  disputes.  Under 
its  control  were  religious  as  well  as  civil  and  criminal 
matters,  for  the  Jews  made  no  distinction  between 
them,  or  rather  treated  all  as  religious.  Above  these 
local  courts,  as  the  final  authority  and  chief  governing 
power,  was  the  Sanhedrin  at  Jerusalem.  This  was  a 
body  of  seventy-one  men, — chief  priests,  scribes  and 
elders,  with  the  highpriest  as  president.  How  they 
"were  selected  we  are  not  informed;  but  probably  they 
held  office  for  life,  and  themselves  chose  men  to  fill 
vacancies.  Certainly  they  were  not  elected  by  popular 
vote ;  and  Josephus  well  describes  the  form  of  govern- 
ment as  an  aristocracy  under  the  presidency  of  the  high- 
driest.  All  matters  involving  the  application  of  Jewish 
law  to  Judeans  came  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  San- 
hedrin; and  its  sentence  was  final;  though  if  the  sen- 
tence was  death,  it  must  be  ratified  by  the  procurator. 
The  Roman  authorities,  however,  could  take  the  initi- 
ative, and  try  the  case  themselves;  or  they  could  call 
the  Sanhedrin  together,  and  require  it  to  render  a 
decision.  According  to  the  Talmud  a  false  prophet, 
a  highpriest,  or  a  tribe  charged  with  idolatry  could 
be  tried  only  by  the  Sanhedrin.  Outside  of  Judea  the 
Sanhedrin  had  merely  such  authority  as  might  be 
voluntarily  given  it;  but  devout  Jews  in  the  realm  of 
Herod  Antipas  and  all  over  the  world  reverenced  its 
opinions,  and  willingly  submitted  themselves  to  its 
decisions. 

Though  Samaria  was  part  of  the  province  of  Judea, 


A' 


'V 


20  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

and  under  the  same  procurator,  it  had  to  be  treated 
as  a  separate  country,  since  the  Jews  had  no  dealings 
with  Samaritans  (John  4:9).  It  seems  to  have  had 
its  own  council  with  powers  similar  to  those  of  the 
Sanhedrin  at  Jerusalem.  The  Romans  favored  Sa- 
maria as  being  a  help  in  holding  the  rebellious  Jews  in 
order;  and  Pontius  Pilate  was  recalled  because  he  put 
down  a  fanatical  uprising  of  Samaritans  with  unneces- 
sary severity. 

2.    Jewish  Sects  or  Parties. 

Political  opinions  unite  men  into  parties;  religious 
opinions,  into  sects ;  but  in  Palestine  politics  and  religion 
were  so  combined  that  the  same  body  of  men  might 
with  equal  propriety  be  called  a  party  or  a  sect.  The 
question  of  taxes,  for  example,  would  in  other  lands 
be  purely  political ;  but  the  Jews  debated  hotly  whether 
paying  taxes  to  Caesar  was  breaking  the  law  of  God  or 
not  (Matt.  12:  14). 

The  Zealots  or  Cananaeans,  to  whom  one  of  the 
apostles  originally  belonged  (Mark  3:  18),  were  men 
fanatically  eager  to  drive  out  the  conquerors  of  their 
country.  It  was  they  who  forced  the  final  rebellion 
of  66-70  A.D.,  and  in  that  rebellion  used  the  sword 
against  not  only  the  Romans  but  also  any  of  their  own 
countrymen  who  sought  a  compromise.  We  should 
call  them  a  political  party;  yet  their  motive  was  to 
reclaim  the  Holy  Land  for  Jehovah,  its  true  ruler. 

The  Herodians,  who  are  mentioned  twice  in  the 
gospel  narrative  (Mark  3 : 6;  12 :  13)  but  in  no  other 
contemporary  writing,  supported  the  royal  claims  of 
Herod  and  his  family.  What  their  motive  was  we  do 
not  know ;  probably  they  thought  it  better  to  be  ruled 
by  an  Idumaean  house,  which  was  in  a  way  their  own 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST     21 

kindred,  than  to  be  under  the  direct  rule  of  the  Romans. 
The  theory  of  some  scholars,  that  they  believed  Herod 
the  Great  to  have  been  the  promised  Messiah,  is  hard 
to  accept. 

The  best  known  and  most  influential  of  the  sects  or 
parties  was  the  Pharisees.  They  are  first  mentioned  by 
this  name  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees;  but  to  discover 
their  origin  and  understand  their  character  we  must 
go  back  to  the  days  when  Ezra  read  the  law  at  Jeru- 
salem and  put  the  people  under  a  covenant  to  keep  it 
(Neh,  8 : 1  f.).  From  that  time  onward  there  was  an 
increasing  emphasis  of  the  law,  which  deeply  influenced 
Jewish  life,  and  out  of  which  arose  both  the  scribes  and 
the  Pharisees.  The  scribes  were  a  body  of  scholars 
who,  as  the  name  indicates,  made  copies  of  the  law, 
but  whose  more  important  work  was  studying,  inter- 
preting, applying  and  teaching  it,  and  who  were,  there- 
fore, called  lawyers  (Luke  11:45)  o^  doctors  of  the 
law  (Luke  5:17).  Their  pupils  addressed  them  as 
rabbi  (Matt.  23:7)  which  means  "my  great  one," 
monseigneur;  later  than  the  time  of  Christ  this  became 
a  special  designation  for  them.  In  their  zeal  for  the 
law  they  were  continually  laying  down  rules  to  prevent 
any  ignorant  or  accidental  violation  of  it.  For  ex- 
ample, the  Fourth  Commandment  forbids  work  on  the 
Sabbath ;  and  carrying  burdens  unquestionably  is  work ; 
but  just  what  is  a  burden,  and  what  constitutes  carry- 
ing it,  and  what  measures  are  necessary  to  guard 
against  thoughtlessly  breaking  the  commandment  ?  The 
discussion  led  to  more  and  more  minute  regulations 
until  it  was  solemnly  decided  that  a  tailor's  needle  is  a 
burden  which  he  may  not  carry  on  the  Sabbath,  nor 
even  late  on  Friday  afternoon  lest  the  Sabbath  come 
upon  him  unawares  while  carrying  it!     Such  regula- 


22  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

tions  constitute  what  is  called  sometimes  the  rabbinical 
law  because  made  by  the  rabbis,  but  more  often  the 
oral  law  because  it  was  not  put  in  writing  but  handed 
down,  as  "  the  tradition  of  the  elders  "  (Mark  y:z)i 
by  word  of  mouth  from  one  generation  of  lawyers  to 

L.  another.  In  the  time  of  Jesus  the  oral  law  had  become 
of  vast  size ;  and  its  devotees  considered  it  to  be  more 
sacred  than  even  the  written  law. 

Closely  connected  but  by  no  means  identical  with 
the  scribes  were  the  Pharisees.  These  were  men  who 
devoted  their  lives  to  keeping  every  minutest  command 
of  both  the  written  and  the  oral  law  as  the  scribes 
directed.  They  formed  a  fraternity  with  special  vows, 
and  held  themselves  proudly  aloof  from  the  mass  of  the 
people  (John  7:47-49).  It  was  because  of  this  atti- 
tude that  they  were  called  Pharisees,  which  means 
"  the  separated,"  and  at  first  may  have  been  a  nickname, 

i-  like  Puritan.  Their  doctrines  were  those  of  orthodox 
Judaism  (Matt.  23:2)  as  it  had  developed  since  the 
Exile;  and  while  they  were  never  a  large  body  (Jo- 
sephus  says  that  in  the  early  days  of  Herod  their 
number  was  somewhat  above  6,000)  their  influence 
was  great  because  the  people  generally  reverenced  them 
as  holy  men,  and  considered  their  life  to  be  the  ideal 
one.  This  fact  justifies  the  statement  of  Montefiore, 
"  It  is  probably  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  five-sixths 
of  the  nation  were  Pharisaic  more  or  less;  though 
where  and  how  the  limits  ran,  it  is  hard  to  say."  Their 
devotion  to  the  law  was  inspired  by  patriotism  as  well 
as  by  religious  zeal;  for  they  believed  that  whenever 
the  law  was  kept  perfectly,  the  Messiah  would  come 
and  set  up  his  reign.  Meanwhile,  as  regards  the  rule 
of  the  Romans,  most  of  them  held  that  it  must  be 
patiently  endured  as  a  just  punishment  for  the  sins  of 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST     23 

the  nation,  until  the  foreordained  day  when  God 
should  remove  it.  The  word  Pharisee  has  become  a 
synonym  for  formalist  and  hypocrite;  and  most  per- 
sons would  justify  this  by  the  accounts  in  the  New 
Testament,  forgetting  that  among  the  New  Testament 
Pharisees  were  such  men  as  Nicodemus,  Gamaliel  and 
Saul  of  Tarsus.  Undoubtedly  an  emphasis  of  the  out- 
ward forms  of  religion  often  caused  the  Pharisees  to 
forget  the  inward  spirit;  and  they  grew  narrow,  cen- 
sorious, self-righteous  and  conceited.  Yet  this  was  not 
the  case  with  all.  The  motive  which  inspired  such 
rigorous  and  painful  legalism  was  a  praiseworthy  de- 
sire to  serve  God  in  each  slightest  act  of  life;  and 
the  best  of  the  Pharisees  must  be  classed  among  the 
best  of  the  Jews. 

While  the  development  and  observance  of  the  law  ab- 
sorbed the  energy  of  the  devoutest  Jews,  and  was  their 
greatest  achievement,  there  were  always  some  who 
opposed  them.  And  the  leaders  of  the  opposition  were 
the  chief  priests.  This  surprises  us  at  first  thought,  yet 
the  reasons  are  simple.  Now  that  there  was  no  longer 
a  king,  the  chief  priests  considered  themselves  the 
rulers  of  the  nation,  and  were  jealous  of  the  increas- 
ing influence  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees.  Their  posi- 
tion was  secured  by  birth,  and  they  disliked  to  see 
honors  heaped  upon  men  who  had  risen  from  the  ranks 
of  the  common  people.  They  had  the  riches  of  the 
temple  at  their  command,  and  were  inclined  to  indulge 
in  luxuries  and  amusements  condemned  by  the  stricter 
Jews.  Above  all,  they  wished  to  do  away  with  the 
regulations  that  separated  the  Jews  from  their  heathen 
neighbors,  making  them  a  peculiar  and  generally 
despised  people.  Of  course,  they  had  no  desire  to 
abolish  the  temple  worship,  since  it  was  the  source  of 


24  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

their  own  authority  and  wealth ;  but  if  the  people  should 
incline  to  transfer  the  temple  worship  from  Jehovah 
to  some  more  widely  recognized  and  less  austere 
divinity,  such  a  change  had  evident  advantages.  This 
V  attitude  of  the  chief  priests  towards  the  law,  especially 
the  oral  law,  was  shared  by  many  of  the  other  wealthy 
families;  and  collectively  they  constituted  the  party 
which  from  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  was  called  the 
Sadducees.  The  name  probably  is  derived  from  Zadok, 
a  priest  in  the  days  of  David,  from  whom  the  chief 
priests  claimed  their  special  authority.  It  is  needless 
to  say  that  the  common  priests  generally  were  not  Sad- 
ducees; indeed,  some  of  them  were  Pharisees. 

Since  the  opposition  of  the  Sadducees  to  the  oral 
law  and  to  those  who  emphasized  it  was  not  at  all  on 
religious  grounds,  and  since  their  ambitions  were 
wholly  worldly,  they  hardly  deserve  to  be  called  a  re- 
L.  ligious  sect.  They  were  aristocrats,  who  in  politics 
sought  to  keep  on  comfortable  terms  with  the  Roman 
authorities  because  otherwise  they  would  lose  their 
power,  and  in  religion  believed  in  maintaining  the  old 
established  forms  of  worship  because  otherwise  they 
would  lose  their  wealth.  They  did  lose  both  when 
Jerusalem  with  the  temple  was  destroyed  in  70  a.d.  ; 
after  that  event  the  Pharisees  grew  even  more  strong, 
but  the  Sadducees  disappeared  forever. 

In  the  writings  of  Josephus  and  of  Philo  is  found 
)f  an  elaborate  account  of  the  Essenes.  We  call  them  a 
sect ;  but  they  more  closely  resembled  a  monastic  order, 
for  they  mostly  lived  in  celibate  communities,  into 
which  members  were  received,  after  a  period  of  pro- 
bation, upon  taking  a  most  solemn  oath ;  they  shared  all 
possessions  in  common ;  and  they  observed  strict  rules 
of  personal  purity,  daily  labor, — mainly  in  agricul- 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST     25 

ture, — common  meals  and  the  like.  Their  doctrines 
are  not  well  known,  but  seem  to  have  been  partly  Jew- 
ish of  the  extreme  Pharisaic  type  and  partly  Pytha- 
gorean or  perhaps  Zoroastrian,  The  principal  com- 
munities were  in  the  wilderness  west  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
but  Essenes  could  be  found  elsewhere  in  Palestine, — 
especially  in  the  villages.  As  they  are  not  mentioned  in 
the  Gospels,  the  chief  reason  for  mentioning  them  here 
is  the  fact  that  some  scholars  maintain  that  John  the 
Baptist  was  taught  by  them,  and  in  turn  passed  on  their 
teachings  to  Jesus.  But  when  we  consider  that  the 
Essenes  were  ascetics  who  withdrew  from  the  world, 
held  their  doctrines  secret,  emphasized  ceremonial 
purity,  denied  any  resurrection,  and  kept  the  Sabbath 
more  strictly  than  did  the  Pharisees,  it  is  evident  that  in 
spirit  they  were  widely  separated  from  the  founder  of 
the  Christian  religion.  Nevertheless  the  existence 
of  such  a  sect  is  noteworthy  as  indicating  a  measure 
of  dissatisfaction  with  the  current  religious  life,  and  of 
5'^earning  for  something  purer  and  more  truly  spiritual. 
The  search  after  God  which  led  these  Essenes  to  a 
quietistic  life  in  the  wilderness  was  prompted  by  the 
same  impulse  that  later  on  led  disciples  to  John  and  to 
his  great  successor. 

All  these  sects, — the  Essenes,  Sadducees,  Pharisees, 
Herodians  and  Zealots, — formed  only  a  fraction  of  the 
Jewish  people.  The  great  majority  of  the  priests  were 
poor,  obscure  and  devout,  and  were  treated  with  con- 
tempt and  even  cruelty  by  the  Sadducees.  And  the 
common  people,  though  they  might  look  up  with  rever- 
ence to  the  Pharisees,  were  neither  able  nor  desirous 
to  take  upon  themselves  the  tremendous  burden  of  the 
traditional  law.  Yet  it  was  among  these  humble  priests 
and  "  this  multitude  that  knoweth  not  the  law  "  that  the 


S6  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

warnings  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  invitations  of 
Jesus  found  most  responsive  hearers. 

3.    The  Temple  and  the  Feasts. 

One  of  the  famous  buildings  of  antiquity,  which  even 
Gentiles  came  from  a  distance  to  behold,  was  the  temple 
in  Jerusalem.  It  was  begun  by  Herod  in  the  eighteenth 
year  of  his  reign,  20-19  B.C.,  and  the  main  part  was  com- 
pleted in  less  than  two  years;  but  work  upon  various 
portions  went  on  long  after  Herod's  death.  In  the 
days  of  Christ's  public  ministry  it  was  still  building 
(John  2:20),  and  it  was  not  wholly  completed  until 
just  before  the  rebellion  of  66-70  a.d.  which  brought 
about  its  destruction.  Herod  was  passionately  fond  of 
building;  and  in  removing  the  shabby  old  temple  of 
Zerubbabel  and  replacing  it  with  this  splendid  edifice, 
he  was  influenced  more  by  his  own  pleasure  and  glory 
than  by  the  religion  of  the  Jews. 

The  temple,  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  term,  was  not 
a  single  building,  but  a  great  group  of  buildings  and 
open  courts  and  covered  porches  or  porticoes.  The 
sacred  heart  of  it  all  was  the  House,  entered  from  a 
porch  at  the  east  and  having  two  divisions,  the  Holy 
Place  or  Sanctuary  and  beyond  this  the  Holy  of  Holies. 
The  latter,  screened  by  a  heavy  veil  which  was  lifted 
only  once  a  year  when  the  highpriest  entered  on  the 
Day  of  Atonement,  was  now  empty,  save  for  the  great 
stone  on  which  once  the  ark  with  its  mercy  seat  had 
rested.  In  the  Holy  Place  stood  the  altar  of  incense, 
with  the  table  of  shew-bread  on  the  north  side  and  the 
golden  candlestick  on  the  south.  In  front  of  the  House, 
in  a  court  which  only  priests  might  enter,  stood  a  huge 
stone  altar  for  burnt  offerings  and,  towards  the  south, 
an  immense  laver  of  brass,  filled  every  morning  with 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST     27 

water.  In  this  Court  of  the  Priests  the  animals  were 
killed  and  offered  as  sacrifices.  Surrounding  this  court, 
with  its  main  entrance  on  the  east,  was  the  narrow 
Court  of  the  Men  of  Israel,  where  the  male  worship- 
pers might  stand  and  share  in  the  service;  east  of  this 
was  the  larger  Court  of  the  Women,  which  was  used 
by  both  sexes,  and  contained  special  chambers  for 
lepers,  Nazarites  and  others,  and  where  were  the 
trumpet-shaped  boxes  into  which  worshippers  cast  their 
money  offerings.  All  this  part  of  the  temple  was  so 
sacred  that  no  Gentile  could  enter  it  under  penalty  of 
death;  and  the  punishment  for  violating  its  sanctity 
was  the  only  death  penalty  the  Jews  might  execute  upon 
even  a  Roman  without  asking  permission  from  the 
procurator.  Enclosing  this  sacred  part  of  the  temple 
was  a  great  court,  open  to  visitors  of  any  race,  and 
hence  called  the  Court  of  the  Gentiles.  Here,  in  the 
time  of  Christ,  cattle,  doves  and  other  sacrificial  offer- 
ings were  exposed  for  sale  to  the  worshippers,  and  the 
tables  of  the  money  changers  were  placed.  Broad  cov- 
ered porches,  of  which  the  one  on  the  east  was  called 
Solomon's  Porch  (John  10:23),  formed  the  outer 
limits  of  the  Court  of  the  Gentiles,  and  were  convenient 
shelters  in  stormy  weather  and  meeting  places  for  dis- 
cussion or  instruction.  The  exact  size  and  shape  of  all 
these  various  parts  of  the  temple,  and  the  location  and 
use  of  the  various  chambers  and  rooms  that  were  to  be 
found  in  them,  are  subjects  most  intricate  and  uncer- 
tain. Fortunately  they  are  not  of  importance  for  our 
present  purpose. 

The  temple  and  the  worship  were  under  the  care  of 
the  priests  and  their  assistants,  the  Levites.  Many  of 
these  lived  in  Jerusalem  or  its  vicinity;  the  rest  were 
scattered  throughout  Palestine,  though  naturally  the 


28  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

majority  of  them  lived  in  Judea.  They  were  divided 
into  twenty-four  "  courses,"  each  of  which  was  on  duty 
for  a  week  (Luke  i :  5,  8).    At  the  head  of  all  was  the 

^  highpriest,  who  alone  could  perform  certain  sacred 
offices,  but  whose  position  now  was  far  more  political 
than  religious.  The  highpriesthood  in  early  days  was 
hereditary  and  for  life ;  but  Herod  and  the  Romans  ap- 
pointed the  highpriest  and  deposed  him  as  they  pleased, 
though  the  appointment  could  be  only  from  certain 
families.  Members  of  these  families,  and  especially  the 
ex-highpriests,  are  probably  the  persons  called  "  chief 
priests."  Certain  tithes,  offerings  and  parts  of  offer- 
ings were  the  portion  of  the  priests  for  their  own 
support. 

The  morning  and  the  evening  sacrifice  offered  for 
the  whole  nation,  and  the  constant  succession  of  sacri- 
fices offered  for  private  worshippers,  kept  the  priests 
occupied  and  the  temple  courts  thronged  from  sunrise 
to  sunset  every  day.  But  on  the  feast  days  the  crowd 
and  the  activities  were  vastly  increased.     There  were 

J^  three  great  annual  feasts  which  all  adult  male  Jews 
living  within  fifteen  miles  of  Jerusalem,  and  not  cere- 
monially unclean,  were  obliged  to  attend ;  and  to  which 
there  came  voluntarily  great  numbers,  including  many 
women,  from  other  parts  of  Palestine  and  from  for- 
eign lands.  These  three  feasts  were  the  Passover, 
Pentecost  and  Tabernacles.  The  precise  date  of  each 
varied  from  year  to  year  because  the  Jewish  year  was 
made  up  of  twelve  lunar  months  of  twenty-nine  or 
thirty  days  each,  with  a  thirteenth  month  added  about 
every  third  year  to  avoid  too  great  variation  from 
the  solar  year.  We  can  most  easily  recognize  how  the 
date  of  a  feast  varied,  by  remembering  that  our  Good 
Friday  is  the  successor  of  the  Passover,  and  shifts 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST     29 

back  and  forward  in  the  calendar  after  the  same 
fashion.  The  Jewish  day  began  at  sunset  instead  of 
midnight;  and  the  Jewish  ecclesiastical  year  began  in 
the  spring  with  the  month  Nisan,  while  the  civil  year 
began  in  the  autumn  with  the  month  Tishri. 

A  list  of  all  the  feasts  and  the  one  great  fast  (the 
Day  of  Atonement),  with  the  Jewish  month  and  day 
and  the  approximate  time  according  to  our  calendar 
is  as  follows : 

Passover,  Nisan  14-21, — early  in  April, 
Pentecost,  Sivan  6, — last  of  May, 
Trumpets,  Tishri  i, — last  of  September, 
Day  of  Atonement,  Tishri  10, — early  in  October, 
Tabernacles,  Tishri  15-22, — middle  of  October, 
Dedication,  Kislev  25, — last  of  December. 
Purim,  Adar  14, — early  in  March. 
To  these  should  be  added  the  Feast  of  the  New  Moon 
which  was  observed  on  the  first  day  of  each  month. 
The  meaning  and  details  of  these  feasts,  so  far  as  they 
bear  on  the  life  of  Christ,  will  be  considered  later  on. 
To  the  ancient  Jew  the  temple  and  its  services  were 
full  of  religious  associations  and  most  helpful  for 
spiritual  life;  to  us,  if  we  could  behold  them,  they 
would  be  almost  the  reverse.    The  scene  in  the  Court 
of  the  Gentiles,  where  worshippers  were  leading  cattle 
to  be  slain,  or  returning  with  portions  of  raw  meat  for 
their  own  later  consumption,  where  bargaining  for 
articles  needed  in  the  sacrifices  or  in  the  offerings  was 
constantly  going  on,  where  learned  rabbis  were  holding 
forth  upon  matters  of  the  law  to  eager  groups  of 
hearers,  and  where  strangers  of  all  nationalities  were 
curiously  staring  about  and  asking  questions, — all  this 
would  seem  more  like  a  fair  than  like  a  sanctuary. 
And  especially  the  Court  of  the   Priests, — with  its 


30  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

knives  for  slaying  the  animals,  its  hooks  by  which  the 
carcasses  were  suspended  while  being  skinned  and  dis- 
emboweled, its  drains  for  carrying  away  the  blood  and 
offal,  its  altar  for  burning  the  flesh,  its  laver  full  of 
water  for  washing  and  flushing, — this,  even  when  no 
sacrifices  were  being  offered,  and  still  more  when  the 
great  company  of  priests  and  Levites  were  strenuously 
pushing  forward  their  bloody  work,  would  remind  us 
so  strongly  of  a  slaughter-house  that  we  could  hardly 
realize  we  were  in  the  house  of  God. 

No  such  impressions  filled  the  mind  of  the  Jewish 
j^  worshipper;  and  yet,  in  the  time  of  Christ,  the  temple 
had  ceased  to  be  for  him  what  it  was  for  his  fathers. 
Foreign  conquerors  had  repeatedly  desecrated  it;  the 
ark  and  the  shekinah  had  disappeared;  the  highpriest 
was  appointed  and  removed  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Ro- 
mans ;  the  leading  priests  were  greedy  and  corrupt ;  the 
present  building  was  a  monument  to  the  heathen 
Herod : — did  Jehovah  any  longer  dwell  in  its  courts, 
or  take  pleasure  in  its  sacrifices?  Magnificent  as  it  was, 
and  elaborate  as  was  its  ritual,  did  it  not  really  deserve 
the  condemnation  which  Malachi  pronounced  in  days 
of  former  degeneracy?  Such  thoughts  troubled  the 
devout  seeker  after  God,  and  made  him  dimly  feel 
that  real  communion  was  to  be  found  in  the  closet  and 
the  synagogue  rather  than  in  the  temple. 

4.    The  Synagogue  and  its  Worship. 

\  The  synagogue  seems  to  have  originated  among  the 
Jews  in  Babylon  during  the  Exile  when  they  met  in 
private  houses  (e.g.,  in  Ezekiel's)  for  instruction  and 
such  forms  of  worship  as  could  be  observed  without 
temple  or  altar.  Finding  these  meetings  most  profitable 
they  continued  them  in  buildings  erected  for  the  pur- 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST,     31 

pose  after  their  return  to  Palestine.  The  increasing 
emphasis  of  the  law  helped  the  growth  of  synagogues; 
for  the  main  purpose  of  the  synagogue  is  not  worship 
but  instruction  in  the  law.  In  the  time  of  Christ  one 
or  more  synagogues  stood  in  every  city  and  town  of 
Palestine;  and  they  were  also  to  be  found  outside  of 
Palestine  in  every  place  where  Jews  abounded.  At 
least  ten  men  must  be  present  at  any  service  that  it 
might  be  properly  conducted. 

The  synagogue  building  would  be  cheap  or  costly  ac- 
cording to  the  means  of  the  worshippers.  It  usually  was 
placed  so  that  the  congregation  faced  towards  Jeru- 
salem. Before  them,  at  the  end  of  the  building  was  the 
ark,  i.e.,  a  chest  or  closet  containing  the  rolls  of  sacred 
scripture,  each  in  a  linen  case.  In  front  of  the  ark  was 
a  curtain,  and  before  it  a  lamp,  always  burning.  Next 
were  the  "  chief  seats  "  for  the  elders  and  Pharisees, 
who  sat  facing  the  congregation.  Then  came  the 
reading  desk  on  a  raised  platform,  fronting  the  main 
body  of  worshippers.  Probably  the  women  were  sepa- 
rated from  the  men,  as  in  modern  Oriental  churches; 
in  which  case  they  may  often  have  occupied  a  screened 
gallery. 

In  a  Jewish  town,  as  we  have  noted,  all  matters, 
political  and  religious,  would  be  in  the  hands  of  a 
council  (sanhedrin)  of  the  older  leading  men,  the 
elders.  These  in  a  general  way  would  have  control 
of  the  synagogue.  Most  specially,  they  would  deter- 
mine who  might  share  its  privileges,  and  who  should 
suffer  punishment  by  scourging  or  by  excommunica- 
tion, i.e.,  "  casting  out  of  the  synagogue  "  (John  9 : 
22).  The  latter  was  a  bitter  punishment  as  it  made 
the  person  a  civil  and  social  pariah.  They  would  also 
appoint  the  special  officers  of  the  synagogue,  viz. : 


32  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

i).  The  ruler  of  the  synagogue  (Luke  13:14; 
8:41).  He  had  the  general  supervision  of  the  syna- 
gogue and  its  services,  and  selected  at  each  meeting 
those  who  were  to  take  part  in  the  service.  (Possibly 
a  synagogue  sometimes  had  more  than  one  ruler;  see 
Acts  13:  15.) 

2).  The  chazzan  or  attendant  (Luke  4:20).  His 
duties  were  somewhat  like  those  of  our  modern  sexton 
but,  of  course,  more  highly  esteemed.  He  had  charge 
of  the  sacred  books  and  the  building;  he  administered 
the  scourgings ;  and  probably  he  was  the  village  school- 
teacher. 

3).  The  almoners,  who  collected  and  distributed  the 
alms. 

Services  were  held  in  the  synagogue  on  Sabbath 
(Saturday)  mornings  and  each  feast  day;  less  formal 
services  were  held  on  Sabbath  afternoons,  Mondays 
and  Thursdays.  The  order  of  the  service  was  some- 
what as  follows : — 

1.  The  Shema, — the  recitation  in  unison  of  Deut. 
6:4-9,  II-  13-21.  Num.  15:37-41,  with  certain  bene- 
dictions preceding  and  following. 

2.  Prayers,  with  responses  by  the  people,  all  stand- 
ing. In  later  days,  and  probably  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
the  prayers  were  of  fixed  form, — i.e.,  liturgical. 

3.  Scripture  reading,  by  various  persons  selected  by 
the  ruler.  The  lessons  were  first  from  the  law,  a 
special  portion  being  assigned  for  each  Sabbath,  and 
next  from  the  prophets,  a  free  selection.  The  reading 
was  in  Hebrew ;  but  accompanying  it  was  a  translation 
(targum)  into  Aramaic. 

4.  Address,  by  some  person  or  persons  selected  by 
the  ruler  (Acts  13:15).  The  readers  stood;  the 
speakers  sat  (Luke  4:20). 


PALESTINE  IN  THE  TIME  OF  CHRIST     33 

5.  Benediction.  This  was  by  a  priest;  if  none  was 
present,  it  was  turned  into  a  prayer. 

Note  that  there  was  no  person  corresponding  to  our 
modern  minister,  and  that  there  was  no  provision  for 
reading  the  other  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  ("  the 
Hagiographa  "),  though  certain  selections  from  these 
were  appointed  for  various  feast-days. 

In  the  time  of  Christ  the  synagogue  controlled  by 
scribes  and  Pharisees,  rather  than  the  temple  con- 
trolled by  priests,  was  the  real  center  of  Jewish  reli- 
gious thought  and  life.  In  Gentile  lands  it  not  only 
held  the  Jews  together,  but  also  attracted  many  devout 
Gentiles  to  its  services  and  thus  to  Judaism  or  later  to 
Christianity.  It  gave  Jesus,  and  still  more  the  early 
Christian  evangelists,  a  preaching  place.  And  its  serv- 
ices were  the  model  for  primitive  Christian  church 
worship  and  thus  for  our  present  church  worship. 


II 

THE  RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  OF  THE  JEWS 

BECAUSE  the  Jewish  sacred  books  form  the  Old 
Testament  of  our  Bible,  the  religious  ideas  of 
the  times  in  which  they  were  written  are  familiar.  But 
between  the  completion  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
time  of  Christ  a  period  intervenes  in  which  many  of 
these  ideas  received  further  development  and  new  ideas 
were  added.  To  understand  the  religion  of  the  Jews 
among  whom  Jesus  lived  and  taught  we  must,  there- 
fore, supplement  our  knowledge  gained  from  the  Old 
Testament  with  some  information  concerning  the  later 
course  of  thought. 

One  source  for  this  is  the  Old  Testament  Apoc- 
rypha,— that  group  of  books  which  found  a  place  in 
the  Greek  version  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  (the  Sep- 
tuagint),  and  was  held  inspired  by  all  the  Jews  except 
the  strictest  in  Palestine  itself.  A  more  abundant 
source  of  information  is  the  writings  known  as  the 
Jewish  Apocalypses.  These  were  not  deemed  sacred, 
but  were  popular  in  the  days  of  Christ,  and  shaped 
Jewish  religious  thought  somewhat  as  "  Paradise 
Lost "  and  "  Pilgrim's  Progress  "  shaped  English  re- 
ligious thought.  It  is  only  in  recent  years  that  this 
apocalyptic  literature  has  been  carefully  studied;  in- 
deed, some  of  its  books  were  until  recently  unknown, 
and  many  things  concerning  them  and  their  relation 
to  the  teachings  of  Jesus  are  still  matters  of  debate 

84 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  OF  THE  JEWS        35 

and  investigation.  To  describe  them,  or  even  give  a 
list  of  them,  would  be  unnecessary  here.  Their  gen- 
eral character  and  peculiarities  may  be  indicated  by 
pointing  to  the  Book  of  Daniel  and  the  Revelation  of 
St.  John,  both  of  which  are  apocalyptical  writings. 
The  question  that  alone  concerns  our  present  study  is, 
What  has  been  learned  from  all  sources  about  the 
religious  ideas  of  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ? 

I.    God  and  the  Law. 

We  begin  with  the  idea  of  God,  since  this  idea  shapes 
the  whole  of  any  religion.  Before  the  exile  the  Jews  ,{ 
were  prone  to  polytheism  and  idolatry;  after  the  exile 
there  was  no  more  of  either.  The  sojourn  as  captives 
in  a  land  of  strange  gods  and  monstrous  idols  was  a 
discipline  that  made  those  who  endured  it  without 
giving  up  their  religion  firm  believers  in  the  sole 
supremacy  of  Jehovah  and  the  vanity  of  idols.  Later 
centuries  steadily  increased  the  recognition  -of  God's 
omnipotence  and  spirituality,  but  greatly  diminished 
the  old  feeling  of  His  nearness  and  sympathy.  He  ,, 
became  a  monarch  and  a  judge  rather  than  a  friend  and 
a  counsellor.  He  was  thought  to  be  too  exalted  and 
holy  to  come  into  direct  relations  with  the  earth  and 
men;  so  the  doctrine  grew  that  angels  are  His  inter- 
mediaries to  bear  His  messages,  to  execute  His  de- 
mands, to  rule  over  nations  and  watch  over  individuals. 
In  proportion  as  God's  power  and  unchanging  will  were 
emphasized,  the  belief  arose  that  the  whole  course  of 
human  history  is  unalterably  fixed  by  Him  from  the 
beginning,  and  that  man  has  no  power  of  choice  in 
determining  his  fate.  The  Sadducees,  who  in  religion 
were  conservatives, — so  far  as  they  were  anything, — 
refused  to  accept  these  new  doctrines  of  angels  and 


36  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

foreordination ;  but  the  Pharisees  advocated  them  and 
made  them  popular. 

If  God  is  a  lawgiver  and  a  judge,  the  duty  of  man 
is  to  keep  His  law,  thereby  securing  His  rewards  and 
escaping  His  punishments.  Such  a  view  is  consistent 
with  a  high  spiritual  life,  if  the  law  is  that  which  is 
written  upon  the  heart  rather  than  upon  tables  of 
stone,  if  the  motive  power  for  obeying  it  is  love,  and  if 
the  reward  for  obedience  is  entrance  into  sympathetic 
companionship  with  God.  But  the  law  that  the  scribes 
V  emphasized  and  developed  was  something  far  different. 
It  was  largely  external, — a  matter  of  forms  and  cere- 
monies, of  meats  clean  and  unclean,  of  sacred  days 
and  places  and  persons,  of  acts  forbidden  and  allowed, 
cf  relations  between  the  circumcised  and  the  uncir- 
cumcised.  An  attempt  was  made  to  provide  a  rule  for 
every  possible  action,  and  thus  cover  the  whole  of  life 
with  definite  ordinances.  Acts  were  more  important 
than  feelings  and  motives;  strict  conformance  was  bet- 
ter than  justice  and  mercy. 

This  is  well  illustrated  by  the  Sabbath  laws.  No 
institution  was  more  prized  by  the  Jews  than  the  Sab- 
bath ;  they  gloried  in  it  as  their  peculiar  possession,  and 
multiplied  laws  to  secure  its  strict  observance.  But 
Sabbath-keeping,  as  the  scribes  taught  it,  was  mainly 
abstinence  from  everything  that  in  any  degree  resem- 
bled week-day  occupations.  A  deed  of  mercy  like 
dressing  a  wound,  a  deed  of  charity  like  preparing  food 
for  the  hungry,  a  deed  of  necessity  like  extinguishing  a 
fire,  must  not  be  performed  because  it  involved  labor. 
There  was  nothing  spiritual  in  such  a  Sabbath;  a  man 
might  keep  the  day  in  perfect  obedience  to  the  law,  and 
yet  have  a  heart  full  of  malice,  envy  and  pride.  And 
there  was  nothing  elevating  to  the  soul  in  such  obedi- 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  OF  THE  JEWS        37 

ence;  in  fact,  a  Sabbath  spent  in  the  trammels  of  a  host 
of  petty  rules  was  drudgery  and  not  a  delight. 

The  laws  of  the  scribes  were  largely  prohibitions, — 
"  Touch  not :  taste  not :  handle  not."  Even  the  Golden 
Rule  which  Hillel,  one  of  the  best  of  the  teachers, 
proclaimed,  was  (like  that  of  Confucius)  in  the  nega- 
tive form,  "  Do  not  do  unto  others  what  you  would 
not  have  them  do  unto  you."  Restraint  rather  than 
development  was  the  keynote  of  the  religious  life;  pas- 
sive virtues  were  most  cultivated.  The  special  acts 
with  which  God  is  well-pleased, — the  "  righteousness  " 
of  Matt.  6:  i, — were  prayer,  fasting  and  alms-giving. 
Prayer  was  to  be  offered  twice  a  day,  in  the  morning 
and  evening;  it  was  a  formal  matter,  and  a  rabbi  was 
expected  to  teach  his  students  how  to  pray  (Luke 
1 1 :  I ) .  The  ancient  law  prescribed  one  annual  fast, — 
the  Day  of  Atonement;  but  other  fast-days  were  added 
after  the  Exile;  and  the  mere  act  of  fasting  was  con- 
sidered so  meritorious  that  the  Pharisees  fasted  on 
each  Monday  and  Thursday  (Luke  18:12).  Alms- 
giving was  a  part  of  the  synagogue  service,  and  was  a 
way  of  gaining  credit  rather  than  an  expression  of 
sympathy  with  the  poor. 

Formalism  in  religion  tends  to  produce  self-satisfac- 
tion. No  matter  how  elaborate  any  code  of  ceremonies 
and  observances,  by  strenuous  effort  it  may  be  com- 
pletely carried  out;  and  when  that  is  done,  the  goal  is 
leached, — nothing  lies  beyond.  The  man  who  has 
achieved  this  external  perfection  counts  himself  ac- 
ceptable to  God;  and  his  attitude  towards  those  who 
fail  to  reach  his  standard  is  apt  to  be  one  of  contempt 
and  censure.  While  the  Jews  despised  the  Gentiles  as 
people  who  had  no  law,  the  Pharisees  in  turn  despised 
all  other  Jews  as  people  who  knew  not  the  law  (John 


38  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

7 :  49).  They  are  well  described  in  the  preface  to  the 
parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  publican  as  those  "  who 
trusted  in  themselves  that  they  were  righteous,  and 
set  all  others  at  nought"  (Luke  18:9).  Evidently  a 
man  who  undertook  to  keep  the  law  could  do  little  else. 
From  many  occupations  he  was  completely  barred  be- 
cause they  involved  ceremonial  defilement;  and  for 
the  rest  he  would  have  little  time  after  he  had  finished 
the  prayers,  the  ablutions,  the  attendance  upon  syna- 
gogue or  temple  services,  and  all  the  observances  he 
deemed  of  first  importance.  A  poor  man  could  hardly 
earn  his  living  and  also  be  religious;  so  when  Jesus 
once  declared  that  a  rich  man  enters  the  kingdom  of 
God  with  difficulty,  the  disciples  felt  they  had  good 
reason  for  asking,  "  Then  who  can  be  saved?  "  (Mark 
10: 26). 

Though  the  people  generally  looked  upon  the  Phari- 
see as  a  saint,  and  though  the  Jews  as  a  nation  were 
exceedingly  zealous  for  the  law,  we  must  not  imagine 
>  there  were  no  exceptions.  On  the  one  hand,  were  some 
who,  like  the  Sadducees,  held  their  religion  lightly,  or 
wholly  abandoned  it,  through  the  influence  of  heathen 
thought  and  life.  We  know  that  even  at  Jerusalem, 
which  was  the  very  center  of  legalism,  Herod  the  Great 
built  a  theatre  and  an  amphitheatre,  and  celebrated 
games  in  honor  of  Augustus,  which  would  have  been 
impossible  if  a  portion  of  the  people  had  not  been  will- 
ing to  break  over  the  barriers  of  the  law.  And  on  the 
other  hand,  there  were  noble  souls,  some  among  the 
prominent  leaders  and  many  among  the  obscure  people, 
who  held  a  more  spiritual  view  of  religion,  and  a  kind- 
lier attitude  towards  those  who  were  not  of  their  own 
faith.  The  teachings  of  the  prophets  and  the  out- 
pourings of  the  Psalms  were  the  food  that  nourished 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  OF  THE  JEWS        39 

these  souls;  and  for  them  the  law  was  a  joy  and  privi- 
lege rather  than  a  burden  because  it  was  given  by  a 
gracious  God  who  in  these  ordinances  placed  before 
His  chosen  people  the  way  of  outward  prosperity  and 
inward  peace. 

2.    The  Messianic  Hope. 

The  most  remarkable  thing  about  the  Jews  from  the 
Exile  to  the  present  day  is  that  they  have  maintained 
their  distinct  existence  through  centuries  of  oppression 
and  helplessness  which  would  have  obliterated  any 
other  people.  This  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  while 
the  Golden  Age  of  other  nations  lies  in  the  past,  that 
of  the  Jews  has  ever  been  in  the  future — they  have 
been  saved  by  hope.  They  have  constantly  looked  for- 
ward to  the  Messianic  Age,  and  confidently  expected 
that  it  speedily  would  dawn. 

To  give  the  history  of  the  Messianic  hope  would  be 
to  rehearse  the  whole  history  and  thought  of  the  Jews ; 
for,  not  only  did  that  hope  exist  and  develop  all 
through  the  centuries,  but  its  precise  form  at  different 
periods  was  shaped  by  contemporary  conditions  and 
current  ideas.  The  Messianic  Age,  in  the  widest  sense 
of  the  term,  is  the  glorious  time  when,  through  the 
favor  of  Jehovah,  all  the  desires  of  His  people,  Israel, 
shall  be  satisfied.  Because  the  Jews  were  usually  a 
subject  nation  and  without  a  strong  leader,  their  most 
persistent  desire  was  for  a  king  who  would  crush  their 
foes  and  achieve  an  independent  kingdom.  Such  a 
king  must  be  the  chosen  agent  of  God;  accordingly  he 
is  called  the  Messiah  (the  Christ)  which  means  the 
Anointed  (Ps.  2:2),  i.e.,  the  one  whom  God  has  placed 
on  the  throne ;  or,  because  in  him  is  fulfilled  Jehovah's 
promise  to  David  concerning  some  descendant,  "  I  will 


40  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

be  his  father,  and  he  shall  be  my  son  "  (2  Sam.  7:  14), 
he  is  called, — at  least  in  later  days  and  especially  in  the 
time  of  Jesus, — the  Son  of  God. 
/^-  The  Messianic  hope  was  usually  for  the  coming  of  a 
personal  Messiah  and  the  establishment  of  his  king- 
dom,— the  kingdom  of  God.  But  there  were  periods 
when  the  Jews  had  independence,  or  enough  of  liberty 
to  satisfy  them;  then  they  ceased  to  yearn  for  a  future 
kingdom :  and  there  were  periods  when  they  were  con- 
tent with  their  present  leaders;  then  they  ceased  to 
desire  a  Messiah.  Still  the  present  was  never  so  ideal 
as  to  destroy  all  longing  for  a  better  future.  Sickness 
and  suffering  made  them  yearn  for  a  day  when  physi- 
cal ills  would  disappear;  the  barrenness  of  Judea's 
hills  set  them  to  dreaming  of  a  time  when  the  ground 
would  bring  forth  abundantly  with  little  or  no  labor; 
the  contempt  of  other  nations  created  an  emphasis  of 
a  glorious  day  when  all  nations  would  stream  as  humble 
learners  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Whenever  na- 
tional events  aroused  a  feeling  of  sin  and  impurity,  the 
hope  was  for  purification  and  spiritual  blessings;  but 
when  religion  grew  dead,  such  higher  aspirations  were 
exchanged  for  more  sensuous  and  selfish  desires.  And 
sometimes  all  hope  of  Jehovah's  blessing  almost  dis- 
appeared, either  through  long  delay  and  frequent 
disappointment,  or  through  the  lack  of  earnest  preach- 
ers to  rouse  the  nation  from  apathy. 

At  the  period  we  are  to  study,  the  thoughts  of  the 
■  Jews  were  centered  upon  the  Messianic  hope  more 
'  strongly,  perhaps,  than  at  any  time  before  or  since. 
The  brief  taste  of  liberty  and  power  under  the  Mac- 
cabees was  too  recent  to  be  forgotten,  and  stirred  up  a 
clamorous  appetite  for  more.  The  Sadducees,  who  had 
come  back  into  positions  of  authority  after  the  death 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  OF  THE  JEWS        41 

of  Herod,  were  well  content  with  Rome's  dominion; 
but  the  Pharisees  and  the  people  generally  were  long- 
ing and  hoping  for  release  from  it  through  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  conception  of 
the  course  of  events  by  which  this  kingdom  would  be 
established  differed  in  degrees  of  the  supernatural. 
The  opinion  of  some  was  that  the  expected  Messiah 
would  be  a  purely  human  descendant  of  David  who 
would  lead  the  people  against  the  Romans  and,  with 
divine  aid,  drive  them  out.  When  firmly  established 
upon  his  throne,  he  would  extend  his  dominion  farther 
even  than  did  his  great  ancestor;  the  Jews  in  foreign 
lands  would  come  back  and  make  Jerusalem  and  Pales- 
tine populous  and  prosperous;  and  through  the  bless- 
ings of  Jehovah  life  would  become  easy  and  delightful. 
All  this  would  take  place  when  the  people  were  pre- 
pared for  their  king  (Luke  i :  17) ;  their  present  un- 
belief and  failure  to  keep  the  law  were  what  delayed 
his  coming.  These  Messianic  ideas  were  taken  mainly 
from  the  Old  Testament  prophecies. 

There  was  another  conception, — found  in  portions 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  elaborated  in  later  apoca- 
lyptic literature, — that  involved  a  larger  degree  of  the 
supernatural,  and  a  universal  view  of  the  world  and  its 
destiny.  According  to  this  the  present  time  was  the 
close  of  one  great  age  or  aeon  of  history,  an  age  filled 
with  suffering  and  unrighteousness,  and  dominated  by 
the  powers  of  evil.  The  final  scenes  in  this  age  were 
to  be  a  seeming  triumph  of  Satan  accompanied  with 
direst  calamities,  portents  and  prodigies.  Wars,  earth- 
quakes, famines,  signs  in  the  heavens,  horrors,  and 
catastrophies  unspeakable,  mark  the  near  end  of  the 
present  evil  world  and  the  approach  of  the  world  to 
come.    Then  follows  the  judgment, — the  Day  of  the 


42  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Lord, — when  the  kingdom  of  Satan  is  overthrown,  his 
followers  are  sentenced  to  punishment  according  to 
their  deeds,  the  world  is  purified  from  sin  and  its  effects 
so  as  to  be  a  delightful  habitation  for  the  saints,  and 
the  faithful  inherit  it.  Not  only  those  who  are  alive 
at  that  day  but  also  the  dead,  coming  forth  from  their 
graves,  share  in  the  punishments  and  the  rewards.  Be- 
cause of  its  emphasis  of  eschatology  (the  doctrine  of 
"the  last  things  "),  this  conception  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  usually  called  the  eschatological. 

In  some  of  the  apocalypses  there  is  no  mention  of 
the  Messiah;  the  final  victory  over  Satan  and  evil  is 
the  direct  work  of  God  and  His  angels.  In  other 
apocalypses  the  Messiah  is  God's  agent  and  representa- 
tive in  the  victory;  but  his  part  is  as  supernatural  as 
the  rest.  He  is  not  a  man,  but  a  pre-existent,  super- 
human being  who  comes  suddenly,  mysteriously,  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  to  work  miracles,  overthrow  all  ene- 
mies, pronounce  the  divine  sentence  upon  the  wicked, 
and  rule  over  not  only  the  Jews  but  the  whole  world. 
Elijah,  returning  from  the  spirit  world,  is  his  fore- 
runner ;  and  angels  are  his  attendants  and  armed  host. 

Evidently  the  prophetic  and  the  apocalyptic  concep- 
tions of  the  Messianic  Age  cannot  be  joined  in  one 
harmonious  scheme;  and  doubtless  various  elements  of 
each  were  held  confusedly  by  most  Jews.  In  fact, 
the  question,  What  did  the  Jews  in  the  first  century 
think  concerning  the  coming  of  Christ?  is  no  more 
capable  of  a  single  answer  than  the  similar  question, 
What  do  Christians  today  think  concerning  the  second 
\      coming  of  Christ? 

The  Samaritans,  also,  were  expecting  the  Messiah; 
but  we  know  little  about  their  Messianic  ideas.  From 
the  fact  that  they  accepted  only  the  Pentateuch  as 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  OF  THE  JEWS        43 

sacred  scriptures,  and  had  remained  free  from  the  influ- 
ence of  later  prophetic  and  apocalyptic  teachings,  we 
infer  that  their  thought  of  the  Messiah  was  a  simple, 
primitive  one.    In  Deut.  i8 :  i8  Jehovah  says  to  Moses, 
"  I  will  raise  them  up  a  prophet  from  among  their 
brethren,  like  unto  thee ;  and  I  will  put  my  words  into 
his  mouth,  and  he  shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I 
shall  command  him."     Relying  on  this  promise  the 
Samaritans  seem  to  have  expected  as  their  Messiah  a 
second  Moses  whose  chief  work  would  be  that  of  a 
religious  teacher.    This  was  the  expectation  set  forth 
by  the  Samaritan  woman  in  her  talk  with  Jesus  (John 
4:25);  and  her  reason  for  believing  Him  to  be  the 
Messiah  was,  He  "  told  me  all  things  that  ever  I  did." 
The  formalism,  legalism  and  hypocrisy,  which  hin- 
dered the  work  of  Jesus  and  compassed  His  death, 
make  themselves  so  prominent  in  the  gospel  story, 
that  we  are  disposed  to  conclude  they  were  the  char- 
acteristic   features   of   Jewish   religious   life    in   His 
day,  and  true  religion  was  dying  or  actually  dead. 
This  is  a  mistake.    Toy  says,  "  It  was  by  no  means  a 
religiously  torpid  age ;  on  the  contrary,  there  is  reason 
to  believe  that  there  was  a  well-defined  feeling  of  dis- 
contentment in  the  best  minds  :— a  desire  for  something 
purer  and  higher  than  had  yet  been  attained."     And 
Sanday  states  this  still  more  strongly :  "  Perhaps  at  no 
time,  either  before  or  since,  has  there  been  so  much 
aspiration,  so  much  ardent  longing  for  a  future  m 
which  God  should  reign  more  visibly  and  triumphantly 
than  ever  in  the  past.     In  this  attitude  of  intense  ex- 
pectation culminated  the  preparation  in  history  for  the 
coming  of  Christ;  it  was  in  the  midst  of  it  that  He 
came,  and  to  it  that  He  appealed." 


Ill 

THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS 

THE  story  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  as  the  Christian 
church  for  centuries  has  told  it,  is  as  follows : — 

In  the  days  of  Herod  the  Great  there  lived  in  Naza- 
reth two  descendants  of  David,  a  maiden  named  Mary 
and  the  man  to  whom  she  was  betrothed,  Joseph.  Be- 
fore their  marriage  the  angel  Gabriel  appeared  to 
Mary,  and  announced  that  she  would  be  the  mother 
of  a  divine  child,  the  Messiah,  and  that  her  aged  kins- 
woman, Elizabeth,  was  soon  to  bear  a  son.  Thereupon 
Mary  made  a  journey  to  the  home  of  Elizabeth  in 
Judea,  and  abode  with  her  about  three  months,  the 
two  women  rejoicing  together  over  the  favor  of  God 
vouchsafed  to  them.  After  her  return,  and  when  it 
was  evident  that  she  was  to  become  a  mother,  Joseph 
planned  to  break  the  betrothal  ties ;  but  being  assured 
in  a  dream  that  Mary  was  pure  and  the  child  divine, 
he  married  her. 

The  requirement  that  a  census  list  be  made  of  all 
citizens,  each  in  his  own  city,  caused  Joseph  and  Mary 
to  make  a  journey  to  Bethlehem.  The  village  khan  was 
filled  with  strangers ;  so  they  lodged  in  a  place, — tradi- 
tion says  a  cave, — where  cattle  were  kept,  and  there 
the  child  was  born  and  cradled  in  a  manger.  The  same 
night  certain  shepherds  sought  them  out,  with  the  won- 
derful news  that  while  watching  their  flocks  in  the 
fields  they  had  been  told  by  an  angel  that  the  new-born 

44 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS  45 

Messiah  was  lying  in  a  manger  at  Bethlehem,  and  they 
had  heard  a  great  chorus  of  angels  celebrating  His 
birth.  Moved  by  all  this,  Joseph,  instead  of  returning 
to  Nazareth,  decided  to  rear  his  child  in  the  town  of  his 
ancestor,  and  secured  a  house  as  a  home.  On  the 
eighth  day,  according  to  the  regular  Jewish  custom, 
the  child  was  circumcised  and  named  Jesus, — the  Greek 
form  of  the  Hebrew  Joshua,  which  means  "  Jehovah 
is  salvation."  At  the  end  of  forty  days  the  parents 
with  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem  that  Mary  might 
make  the  humble  offering  of  two  doves  for  her  purifica- 
tion from  child-birth,  and  that  they  might  also  pay  the 
five  shekels  which  were  given  the  Lord  in  redemption 
of  a  firstborn  son.  While  in  the  temple  Simeon  and 
Anna,  two  aged  persons  of  devout  spirit,  greeted  the 
child  and  bore  testimony  to  His  Messiahship.  Later  on 
magi  from  the  East  arrived  in  Jerusalem,  who  told 
Herod  they  had  seen  a  star  heralding  the  birth  of  a 
king  of  the  Jews,  and  wished  to  know  where  He  was 
that  they  might  worship  Him.  Herod  sent  them  to 
Bethlehem  because  prophecy  declared  the  Messiah 
would  be  born  in  the  city  of  David;  and  he  asked  them 
to  report,  if  they  found  the  child,  that  he,  too,  might 
worship  Him.  Guided  by  the  star  the  Magi  came  to  the 
house  of  Joseph,  where  they  worshipped  the  child,  and 
gave  gifts  of  gold,  frankincense  and  myrrh;  then, 
warned  by  a  dream  not  to  return  to  Herod  because  he 
sought  to  destroy  Him,  they  went  by  another  way  to 
their  own  country.  In  rage  Herod  ordered  that  all 
male  children  under  two  years  of  age  in  Bethlehem 
and  its  vicinity  be  put  to  death;  but  Joseph  was  in- 
formed of  this  by  another  dream,  and  fled  into  Egypt 
with  the  mother  and  her  child.  There  he  remained 
until  Herod's  death,  when  the  command  came  through 


46  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

a  dream  to  return  to  Palestine.  He  obeyed,  intending 
to  resume  his  life  in  Bethlehem;  but  fearing  Herod's 
son,  Archelaus,  and  guided  by  a  dream,  he  went  to 
Nazareth  and  dwelt  there. 

I.    Discrepancies  between  the  two  Narratives. 

This  story  is  formed  by  dove-tailing  together  the 
accounts  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  two  have  little 
in  common, — only  the  facts  that  Mary  was  betrothed 
to  Joseph,  that  before  their  marriage  she  divinely  con- 
ceived a  child  whose  name  was  to  be  Jesus,  and  that  the 
child  was  born  in  Bethlehem  and  reared  in  Nazareth. 
Evidently  the  two  evangelists  drew  their  information 
from  wholly  distinct  sources ;  but  what  these  were  we 
cannot  tell.  The  sudden  change  in  Luke's  style  when 
he  passes  from  his  preface  to  the  story  would  indi- 
cate that  his  source  was  an  Aramaic  document,  per- 
haps one  of  the  narratives  to  which  he  refers  in  his 
preface;  and  Sanday  thinks  these  opening  chapters 
"  essentially  the  most  archaic  thing  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment." Some  hold  that  Matthew's  source,  also,  was  a 
written  one.  The  story  in  Matthew  is  told  from 
Joseph's  standpoint, — absolutely  nothing  is  said  of 
Mary's  thoughts  or  emotions  or  independent  acts;  the 
story  in  Luke  is  just  the  reverse, — Mary  is  the  central 
figure,  and  her  inner  life  is  delicately  and  touchingly 
disclosed.  This  leads  to  the  conjecture  that  in  some 
way  Matthew's  story  came  from  Joseph,  and  Luke's 
story  from  Mary :  but  how,  remains  unexplained. 

It  is  often  said  that  the  two  narratives  do  not  agree ; 
yet,  with  one  exception,  all  the  alleged  discrepancies 
arise,  not  from  what  is  stated,  but  from  what  might 
be  inferred,  if  one  account  stood  alone.  For  example, 
if  we  had  only  Matthew,  we  might  suppose  Joseph  to 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS  47 

have  been  a  householder  in  Bethlehem,  who  never 
thought  of  living  in  Nazareth  until  after  the  return 
from  Egypt;  while  from  Luke  alone  we  should  con- 
clude that  the  visit  to  Bethlehem  was  as  brief  as  pos- 
sible, and  the  temple  visit  was  made  on  the  homeward 
journey  to  Nazareth.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  when  the 
two  accounts  are  taken  together,  they  not  only  form 
an  harmonious  narrative  but  throw  light  each  upon 
the  other.  Joseph's  attitude  towards  Mary,  as  revealed 
in  Luke,  is  explained  by  what  is  told  in  Matthew ;  and 
the  choice  of  Nazareth  for  a  home  when  Bethlehem  is 
unsafe,  though  told  in  Matthew,  becomes  intelligible 
through  Luke.  Such  mutual  corroboration  by  two  in- 
dependent narratives  is  a  proof  of  their  common  truth- 
fulness. 

The  genealogical  tables,  however,  present  a  real 
difficulty :  Why  is  it  that  the  one  in  Matthew  differs  so 
greatly  from  the  one  in  Luke  ?  From  very  early  times  -f— 
various  explanations  have  been  proposed,  e.g.,  that 
one  table  gives  Joseph's  natural  descent  from  David, 
while  the  other  gives  his  legal  descent  through  a  levi- 
rate  marriage  (i.e.,  the  Jewish  custom  of  taking  the 
widow  of  a  childless  brother,  and  reckoning  her  first 
son  to  be  the  brother's  child)  ;  again,  that  one  table 
gives  Joseph's  natural  descent,  and  the  other  the  line 
through  which  the  title  to  David's  throne  came  to  him ; 
again,  that  one  table  gives  the  ancestry  of  Joseph,  the 
other  that  of  Mary.  The  modern  inclination  is  to  make 
no  attempt  to  reconcile  the  two,  but  simply  to  accept 
them  as  two  different  accounts  of  Joseph's  lineage, 
which  the  evangelists  found  and  incorporated  in  their 
two  narratives. 


48  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

2.    Credibility  of  the  Story. 

Granting  that  the  accounts  in  Matthew  and  Luke  can 
be  framed  into  a  consistent  narrative,  there  are  still 
many  difficulties  in  accepting  the  narrative  as  trust- 
worthy. A  recognition  of  the  deity  of  Jesus,  however, 
removes  one  frequent  objection,  viz. :  that  a  virgin 
birth  is  a  miracle  and  therefore  incredible.  The  law  of 
human  birth  necessitates  a  human  father,  and  if  Jesus 
was  only  a  man.  His  birth  would  be  a  miracle :  but  we 
know  nothing  about  the  law  of  the  birth  of  a  Godman; 
and  if  it  is  evident  from  His  character,  life,  teachings 
and  influence  that  Jesus  was  divine,  then  His  entrance 
into  the  world  may  be  just  as  natural,  so  to  speak,  as 
the  rest  of  His  earthly  career.  For  this  reason  the 
term  "  the  miraculous  conception,"  though  often  used, 
is  objectionable ;  it  is  better  to  avoid  it  and  use  instead 
the  simply  descriptive  term,  *,'  the  virgin  birth." 

The  fact  that  nowhere  else  except  in  the  opening 
chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke  is  the  virgin  birth  even 
alluded  to,  is  puzzling.  We  can  understand  why  Mark 
begins  his  gospel  with  the  preaching  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist and  the  baptism  of  Jesus :  he  was  reproducing  the 
story  Peter  used  to  tell  for  evangelistic  purposes ;  and 
the  virgin  birth  is  not  a  theme  for  the  opening  message 
of  a  missionary.  So,  too,  John's  silence  may  be  ex- 
plained by  the  fact  that  his  gospel  was  largely  sup- 
plementary, and  there  was  no  need  to  tell  the  story 
again.  Indeed,  his  silence  may  be  used  as  an  argument 
for  the  truth  of  the  story;  since,  had  he  believed  it 
untrue,  he  would  have  taken  pains  to  deny  it,  even  as  he 
did  deny  the  erroneous  report  that  Jesus  had  said  John 
would  not  die  before  the  Second  Coming.  But  why 
are  the  epistles  wholly  silent,  even  in  passages  where 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS  49 

a  reference  to  the  virgin  birth  would  seem  most  natu- 
ral and  helpful  ?  The  only  answer  is  that  the  story  was 
not  generally  told,  and  was  guarded  as  a  precious  mys- 
tery by  those  who  knew  it.  We  shall  presently  note 
some  reasons  why  it  could  not  be  proclaimed  to 
churches  made  up  of  recent  converts  from  heathen 
beliefs. 

The  attitude  of  Mary  and  the  brothers  of  Jesus  in 
later  years  seems  inconsistent  with  a  knowledge  that  He 
was  the  Son  of  God.  This  is  best  discussed  in  connec- 
tion with  their  part  in  His  public  ministry;  we  shall 
consider  it  presently. 

Probably  to  most  minds  the  crowning  difficulty  in 
accepting  the  story  is  its  strong  resemblance  to  the 
legends  which  in  those  days  gathered  around  the  birth 
of  almost  all  famous  characters.  The  divine  father- 
hood, the  prophecies  of  future  greatness,  the  heavenly 
visitants,  the  star,  the  perils  threatening  the  young 
child's  life, — each  of  these  is  paralleled  somewhere  in 
the  stories  of  the  Buddha  and  other  religious  teachers, 
or  of  Alexander  and  Caesar  and  other  conquerors 
and  kings.  If  we  reject  them  contemptuously  when 
recorded  by  heathen  writers,  why  should  we  accept 
them  when  told  by  the  evangelists? 

The  story  of  the  birth  of  Buddha,  which  is  the  one 
most  similar  to  that  of  Jesus,  may  be  explained  as 
growing  out  of  the  contact  of  Buddhism  with  Chris- 
tianity. It  is  found  only  in  later  Buddhist  books,  and 
is  not  at  all  in  harmony  with  the  early  form  of 
Buddhist  teachings  in  which  the  supernatural  is  strictly 
excluded.  And  as  regards  other  stories  we  may  prop- 
erly protest  against  the  method  of  wandering  through 
all  heathen  mythology,  and  gathering  at  haphazard 
every  item  that  bears  a  superficial  resemblance  to  the 


■h 


50  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRISTj 

Christian  belief,  in  proof  that  the  two  are  identical 
and  equally  worthless. 

Heathen  parallels  are  of  little  value  unless  we  can 
show  how  Christian  thought  came  to  reproduce  them; 
and  this  is  not  an  easy  task.  The  theory  that  the  birth- 
<+•  \story  was  borrowed  from  the  heathen  is  confronted 
with  the  fact  that  heathen  life  and  thought  were  most 
repulsive  to  the  early  Christians,  who  sought  in  every 
jWay  to  avoid  them.     One  probable  reason  why  those 

!/  who  knew  about  the  birth  of  Jesus  refrained  from  tell- 
f  ing  it  publicly  was  the  fear  that  it  might  be  under- 
I  stood  as  a  parallel  to  heathen  stories.    The  theory  that 
i  the  story  was  not  borrowed  but  arose  in  Christian  cir- 
cles from  the  same  tendencies  that  produced  the  heathen 
stories   fails   to   recognize  how  totally  the  Christian 
thought  of  God  and  His  relation  to  the  world  differed 
,^       from  heathen  thought.     On  the  one  hand  the  Greek 
and  Roman  deities  were  simply  glorified  men,  human  in 
form  and  life  and  passions;  so  that  it  was  easy  to 
imagine    their   coming   to    earth   and   becoming    the 
fathers  of  superhuman  beings;  but  the  God  of  Jewish 
"^     and  early  Christian  thought  was  purely  spiritual,  holy 
.  and  distinct  from  man ;  and  the  description  in  Luke  of 
how  Mary  became  a  mother  through  the  power  of  the 
Most  High  and  the  overshadowing  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  no  respect  resembles  the  Greek  and  Roman  birth- 
stories  of  demigods.      On  the  other  hand,  Oriental 
V-  i  thought  was  pantheistic;  gods  and  men  alike  were 
u     I  manifestations  of  one  eternal  force,  and  there  was  no 
'  distinction  between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural ; 
so  an  incarnation  presented  no  difficulties  and  signified 
nothing :  but  the  Christian  thought  of  God,  though  not 
as  strongly  transcendent  as  the  Jewish,  emphasized  His 
separateness  from  the  world.    He  was  the  creator  of 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS  51 

heaven  and  earth ;  and  that  He  could  become  incarnate 
was  a  fact  most  difficult  to  grasp.  The  early  Chris- 
tians strongly  believed  in  the  deity  of  Christ ;  but  how 
the  union  of  God  and  man  in  Him  was  possible,  they 
did  not  attempt  to  explain.  Certainly  the  story  of  a 
virgin  birth  was  not  one  that  would  naturally  suggest 
itself  as  they  pondered  on  the  problem. 

Nevertheless,  when  all  this  has  been  said,  the  fact 
remains  that  certain  of  the  incidents  that  are  grouped 
around  the  birth,  such  as  the  chorus  of  angels  heard 
by  the  shepherds,  and  the  star  that  guided  the  magi 
to  the  cradle,  seem  to  belong  to  a  realm  far  different 
from  that  of  the  rest  of  the  gospel  story, — a  realm 
of  marvels  rather  than  miracles,  of  fancy  rather  than 
fact.     For  the  most  part  the  life  of  Jesus  is  not  such 
as  human  imagination  would  frame.     A  teacher  sent 
from  heaven  who  in  boyhood  sat  at  the  feet  of  earthly 
teachers,  a  sinless  being  who  had  to  struggle  against 
temptation,  a  miracle  worker  who  never  used  His  power 
in  satisfying  His  own  wants,  a  king  of  all  men  who 
made  Himself  servant  of  all,  a  lord  of  life  who  gave 
Himself    to    death,— this    runs    so    contrary    to    the 
thoughts  of  men  that  to  call  it  the  product  of  imagina- 
tion is  absurd.   But  some  of  the  incidents  of  the  birth- 
story  are  such  as  fancy  in  those  days  might  add.    And 
it  would  do  this,  not  from  a  love  of  the  marvellous, — 
though  that  was  strong, — but  from  a  desire  to  em- 
phasize the  truth  that  the  incarnation  was  the  most 
wondrous  event  in  history,  and  that  heaven  as  well  as 
earth  was  stirred  by  deepest  interest  in  it. 

3.    The  Importance  of  the  Virgin  Birth. 

Fortunately  belief  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  does  not 
hinge  upon  the  truth  of  incidents  in  the  story,  nor 


V 


52  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

even  upon  the  fact  of  the  virgin  birth.  The  omission  of 
the  opening  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke  would 
make  little  difference  in  the  New  Testament  picture 
of  Christ.  If  our  knowledge  of  His  life  began  with 
John's  baptism,  we  should  be  in  the  position  of  most 
of  the  early  Christians.  Nor,  if  we  accept  the  virgin 
birth,  do  we  gain  any  more  light  upon  the  way  in  which 
the  human  and  the  divine  were  united  in  Jesus.  We 
are  able  to  affirm  that  the  union  existed  from  the  very 
inception  of  His  earthly  existence,  instead  of  beginning 
at  some  later  period,  say  at  His  baptism;  but  the  mys- 
tery of  the  incarnation  remains  as  great  as  before. 

Conversely,  belief  in  the  virgin  birth  does  hinge  upon 
the  divinity  of  Jesus.  Unless  we  are  fully  persuaded 
that  He  was  the  one  sent  by  the  Father  as  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  world,  the  Desire  of  all  nations  and  the 
Lord  of  all  realms,  the  story  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
is  preposterous.  But  if  His  entrance  into  the  world  is 
the  coming  of  God  in  the  flesh,  and  His  mission  is  the 
wonderful  revelation  of  the  love  of  God  to  sinful  men, 
then  we  find  it  fully  as  hard  to  believe  that  this  great- 
est event  in  the  world's  history  was  marked  by  nothing 
that  transcends  the  level  of  ordinary  human  experi- 
ence as  to  believe  the  gospel  record.  Indeed,  the 
proper  place  for  a  consideration  of  the  story  of  His 
birth  is  not  at  the  beginning  of  a  study  of  the  life  of 
Jesus,  but  at  the  close.  After  we  have  traced  His 
self-revelation  from  the  baptism  to  the  ascension,  and 
have  found  an  answer  to  His  question,  "  Who  say  ye 
that  I  am?  ",  then,  and  not  till  then,  are  we  really  pre- 
pared to  pass  judgment  upon  the  record  of  how  He 
entered  into  the  world. 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS  53 

4.    The  Date  of  the  Birth  of  Jesus. 

It  was  a  happy  idea  of  Dionysius  Exiguus,  a  learned 
Roman  monk  who  died  in  556  a.d.,  to  use  the  year  of 
the  birth  of  Jesus  as  the  era  from  which  to  reckon  time ; 
and,  though  the  Christian  world  was  slow  to  adopt  it, 
by  the  tenth  century, — largely  through  the  aid  of  Bede 
and  Charlemagne, — it  was  in  general  use.  But  his 
computation  that  the  year  of  the  birth  was  754  A..U.C. 
was  unfortunate;  for,  although  now  we  know  better, 
there  is  no  possibility  of  changing  the  date;  and  we 
shall  always  have  the  seeming  anachronism  that  Jesus 
was  born  somewhere  in  the  period  we  call  B.C. 

The  exact  date  of  His  birth  cannot  be  fixed.  Herod 
the  Great  died  in  March  or  April  750  a.u.c.  which 
would  be  in  4  B.C.;  and,  if  we  accept  Matthew's  ac- 
count, the  birth  was  before  this  event ;  but  there  is  noth- 
ing in  the  account  to  fix  it  more  exactly,  except  that  the 
child  was  still  "  young  "  when  Joseph  in  Egypt  was 
told  that  Herod  had  died.  Astronomical  calculations 
of  some  conjunction  of  planets  which  might  seem  to 
the  magi  like  a  new  star  are  idle,  because  a  star  that 
acts  as  a  guide  and  stands  above  the  house  where 
the  child  is  to  be  found  is  evidently  a  supernatural 
phenomenon. 

It  would  seem  that  the  time  could  be  definitely  ascer- 
tained from  Luke's  account  of  the  census ;  but  no  other 
writer  mentions  this  census,  and  the  difficulties  in  ac- 
cepting Luke's  statement  are  used  against  the  truth  of 
his  whole  narrative.  There  was  a  census  taken  by 
Quirinius  in  7  a.d.  or  a  little  earlier,  soon  after  Arche- 
laus  was  deposed,  when  Judea  was  annexed  to  Syria 
with  a  Roman  procurator  in  charge  of  the  province. 
Luke  knew  about  the  census  of  7  a.d.  (see  Acts  5  :  37)  J 


64  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

and  he  seems  to  be  carefully  distinguishing  this  one 
from  it  by  his  statement,  "  This  was  the  first  enroll- 
ment made  when  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria," 
But  apart  from  this  statement  by  Luke  we  know  noth- 
ing of  an  earlier  census  in  Judea,  though  we  have 
recently  found  evidence  that  the  Roman  government 
was  accustomed  to  take  a  census  of  the  provinces  at 
regular  intervals  for  the  purpose  of  determining  taxa- 
tion. (In  Egypt  the  interval  was  fourteen  years;  and 
one  rescript  commands  all  persons  residing  away  from 
their  homes  to  return  so  as  to  be  ready  for  the  census. ) 
There  is  some  evidence  also  that  Quirinius  was  in 
Syria,  perhaps  as  governor,  for  a  little  while  shortly 
after  Herod's  death;  but  his  connection  with  a  census 
of  Judea  during  Herod's  reign  is  not  easily  explained. 
Possibly  more  data  may  be  discovered  and  solve  the 
problem ;  but  until  such  discovery  we  can  only  say  that 
in  all  points  where  there  is  full  chance  to  test  him 
(e.g.,  in  the  Book  of  Acts),  Luke  proves  to  be  a  very 
accurate  historian;  and  this  encourages  us  to  believe 
that  if  we  knew  the  facts  more  fully,  we  should  find 
him  accurate  here.  At  present,  however,  the  census 
can  be  of  no  aid  in  fixing  the  date  of  Jesus'  birth. 

There  are  other  notes  of  time  in  the  gospels  that 
seem  to  promise  help,  but  disappoint  us  when  we  test 
them.  Luke  3:1-2  is  an  elaborate  attempt  to  state 
definitely  the  year  when  John  the  Baptist  began  to 
preach;  yet  the  only  useable  fact  in  it  is  that  the  date 
v/as  "  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius 
Caesar."  And  here  we  cannot  tell  whether  to  reckon 
from  the  time  when  Tiberius  became  co-ruler  with 
Augustus,  II  or  12  A.D.,  or  from  the  death  of  Augus- 
tus in  August,  14  A.D,,  when  Tiberius  became  sole  ruler. 
The  former  best  fits  in  with  our  other  data.    Luke  goes 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS  55 

on  to  tell  us  (3:23)  that  Jesus  "when  He  began  to 
teach  was  about  thirty  years  of  age."  But  we  do  not 
know  how  long  John  had  been  preaching  when  he  bap- 
tized Jesus,  nor  just  what  age  is  meant  by  "  about 
thirty  years."  It  seems  probable  that  John  began 
preaching  in  the  summer  of  a.d.  26,  and  that  he  bap- 
tized Jesus  about  six  months  later  (John  was  about 
six  months  older  than  Jesus) .  If  Jesus  was  then  about 
thirty  years  of  age,  His  birth  may  have  been  in  5  b.c. 

John  2 :  20  gives  another  note  of  time.  At  the  first 
Passover  of  Jesus'  ministry,  the  temple  had  been  forty- 
six  years  in  building,  i.e.,  in  reaching  its  then  stage  of 
completion, — it  was  not  entirely  finished  until  64  a.d. 
We  know  that  Herod  probably  began  building  the  tem- 
ple in  the  autumn  or  winter  of  20-19  b.c.  From  the 
autumn  of  20  b.c.  to  the  Passover  of  27  a.d.  would  be 
forty-five  and  a  half  years.  But  we  are  not  certain 
whether  John's  statement  means  that  the  temple  was 
then  in  its  forty-sixth  year  of  building,  or  had  com- 
pleted that  year ;  or  indeed,  whether  the  work  was  not 
then  suspended,  and  the  forty-six  years  refer  to  some 
earlier  period.     So  this  date  does  not  help  us  greatly. 

From  all  this  data,  therefore,  we  can  draw  no  cer- 
tain conclusion ;  but  we  shall  not  be  far  out  of  the  way 
if  we  take  5  b.c,  as  the  year  of  the  birth,  and  also 
reckon  that  the  public  ministry  began  in  the  spring  of 

2^  A.D. 

As  regards  the  day  of  the  birth,  there  is  no  recog- 
nition of  it  until  the  end  of  the  second  century,  when 
at  the  feast  of  Epiphany, — usually  held  on  January 
6th, — the  church  celebrated  both  the  birth  and  the 
baptism  and  also  (in  the  West)  various  other  events, 
including  the  adoration  by  the  magi,  A  separate  cele- 
bration of  the  birth  on  December  25th  was  not  begun 


56  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

until  the  fourth  century.  Probably  that  date  was 
chosen  to  counteract  the  heathen  festival  of  the  winter 
solstice.  It  was  fitting  that  when  their  heathen  neigh- 
bors were  making  merry  over  the  turning  back  of  the 
sun  from  its  journey  down  the  southern  horizon,  the 
Christians  should  hold  a  day  of  rejoicing  over  the  com- 
ing of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  gospel  story  to  make  the  date  impossible ;  for  sheep 
sometimes  are  out  at  pasture  in  the  fields  around  Beth- 
lehem even  as  late  as  December.  But  if  the  time  for 
taking  the  census  was  fixed  with  any  regard  for  the 
convenience  of  the  peojple,  a  far  better  date  would  be 
October,  when  there  comes  a  leisure  interval  after  the 
fruit  harvest  is  ended,  and  when  the  winter  rains  have 
not  yet  begun  to  make  travel  difficult.  All  we  can  say, 
then,  about  Christmas  is  that  it  was  given  its  present 
place  in  the  calendar  long  after  the  exact  day  of  Jesus' 
birth  had  been  forgotten. 


IV 

THE  YEARS  AT  NAZARETH 

T>  ETWEEN  the  birth  in  Bethlehem  and  the  baptism 
■^■^  in  the  Jordan  He  thirty  important  years.  We 
call  them  the  years  at  Nazareth,  ignoring  the  possibility 
that  some  may  have  been  spent  in  journeyings  or  in 
labors  elsewhere.  Save  for  one  brief  incident  they  arc 
hidden  years;  and  though  imagination  loves  to  dwell 
upon  them,  it  has  produced  nothing  that  can  bear  the 
test  of  being  placed  alongside  that  one  incident.  Ac- 
cordingly this  chapter  in  the  life  of  Jesus  can  be 
scarcely  more  than  a  statement  of  what  would  be  the 
usual  education  and  employment  of  a  Jewish  boy  of 
the  period  as  he  grew  up  into  manhood  amid  Galilean 
environment. 

I.   The  Village  of  Nazareth. 

The  village  of  Nazareth  lies  on  the  northwestern 
slope  of  a  small,  irregular  amphitheatre  of  hills,  a  few 
miles  north  of  the  great  plain  of  Esdraelon.  From  its 
streets  little  can  be  seen  except  the  valley  and  hillsides ; 
but  from  any  of  the  hilltops,  especially  from  that  di- 
rectly behind  the  village,  the  view  is  one  of  the  finest 
in  Palestine,  and  has  often  been  described.  The  popu- 
lation today  is  somewhat  over  10,000;  in  the  first  cen- 
tury it  probably  was  smaller,  as  there  is  no  mention  of 
Nazareth  either  in  Josephus  or  in  the  Old  Testament; 
yet  the  gospels  always  call  it  a  city,  which  would  imply 

57 


f^' 


58  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

considerable  size.  Few  villages  are  more  secluded  and 
yet  more  close  to  the  full  rush  of  the  world's  activities. 
The  plain  of  Esdraelon  has  ever  been  one  of  the  great 
highways  of  the  world,  along  which  the  caravans  of 
commerce  and  the  armies  of  contending  nations  have 
passed,  from  the  time  of  the  Hittites  and  pharaohs  to 
the  present  day.  Probably  more  battles  have  been 
fought  upon  it  than  upon  any  other  battle-field  in  the 
world,  the  latest  being  the  battle  between  Napoleon  and 
the  Turks  in  1799.  Yet  neither  the  rush  of  trade  nor 
the  din  of  war  would  disturb  the  town  nestled  among 
the  hills  close  by. 

Nathanael's  question,  "  Can  any  good  come  out  of 
Nazareth?  "  (John  i :  46),  and  the  treatment  of  Jesus 
by  His  townsmen  (Luke  4:  16-30),  have  given  rise  to 
the  opinion  that  Nazareth  in  the  first  century  was  a 
notoriously  wicked  town.  If  this  were  the  case,  it 
seems  incredible  that  Joseph  would  deliberately  choose 
the  place  for  his  own  home  and  for  the  rearing  of  the 
child.  And  there  is  no  ground  for  such  ill  opinion.  Na- 
thanael  was  simply  expressing  surprise  or  incredulity 
that  the  Messiah  came  from  Galilee  (cf.  John  7:41, 
52)  ;  and  the  excitement  and  indignation  with  which 
the  men  of  Nazareth  met  Jesus'  claims  is  rather  to  their 
credit,  if  they  deemed  Him  an  impostor  and  blas- 
phemer. There  is  some  reason  for  believing  that 
Nazareth  was  a  priest-town,  i.e.,  that  here  the  priests 
living  in  that  vicinity  used  to  assemble  to  go  up  to 
Jerusalem  together  for  their  week  of  service,  while 
those  who  were  unable  to  go,  because  of  infirmity  or 
ceremonial  uncleanness,  spent  the  week  here  in  fasting 
and  prayer.  If  this  was  so,  the  town  would  be  con- 
sidered one  of  the  more  sacred  places,  and  the  influ- 
ence of  these  priests  would  be  felt  by  all  its  inhabitants. 


THE  YEARS  AT  NAZARETH  69 

Nazareth  was  better  located  than  Bethlehem  for  the 
training  of  the  child  Jesus.  It  was  in  the  freer  atmos- 
phere of  Galilee  where  the  synagogue  rather  than  the 
temple  dominated  life,  and  where  there  was  more  of 
quickening  contact  with  the  thought  and  work  of  the 
Gentile  world.  The  town  was  secluded  and  yet  close 
to  the  great  current  of  active  life, — a  nursery  separated 
only  by  a  curtain  from  the  living-room  of  the  home. 

2.   The  Home  in  Nazareth. 

Joseph  was  a  "carpenter"  (Matt.  13:55),  and 
Jesus  Himself  followed  the  same  occupation  (Mark 
6:3).  The  Greek  word  translated  carpenter  means  lit- 
erally an  artisan,  a  worker  in  wood  or  leather  or  metal. 
Justin  Martyr  says  Jesus  made  yokes  and  plows,  both 
of  which  in  Palestine  are  of  wood.  That  Joseph  was 
a  poor  man  is  doubtless  true,  since  Mary  in  her  purifi- 
cation offered  for  the  burnt  offering  a  dove  (Luke 
2 :  24),  which  the  poor  were  allowed  to  substitute  for 
a  lamb  (Lev.  12:8).  But  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  he  was  depressingly  poor,  or  that  there  was  much 
difference  between  his  condition  and  that  of  his  neigh- 
bors. Life  in  a  country  town  in  Galilee  would  be  with- 
out sharp  contrasts  in  wealth  or  social  rank.  Moreover, 
to  emphasize  the  poverty  of  Jesus  as  a  burden  taken 
upon  Him  for  our  sakes,  is  to  fail  to  realize  the  depth 
of  the  meaning  in  U  Cor.  8:9,  "  Though  he  was  rich, 
yet  for  your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye  through  his 
poverty  might  become  rich." 

Life  in  Palestine  was  probably  much  the  same  in  the 
first  century  as  it  is  today.  The  average  home  is  a 
stone  building  of  one  story  with  a  flat  roof,  made  of 
rough  beams  covered  with  rushes  or  brush  on  which 
is  laid  a  coating  of  earth  or  mortar,  which  might  easily 


60  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

be  broken  up  (Mark  2:4).  It  has  but  one  or  two 
rooms;  there  is  no  chimney;  and  the  window  is  simply 
an  opening  with  a  wooden  shutter.  The  furniture  is 
very  simple, — a  low  table,  a  few  rude  chairs,  some 
mats  which  serve  as  beds  by  night  and  are  rolled  up 
and  put  away  by  day,  perhaps  a  bench  or  divan  along 
the  wall,  an  olive-oil  lamp  in  a  niche,  some  jars  to  hold 
water,  grain  or  other  stores,  some  dishes,  jugs,  water- 
pots,  and  a  brazier  in  which  a  little  wood  or  charcoal 
is  burned  for  heat  and  cooking.  The  homes  of  the 
wealthy  are,  of  course,  much  more  elaborate,  generally 
with  an  open  court  in  the  center  and  rooms  opening 
out  of  it,  and  with  guest-rooms  built  on  the  flat  roof 
(Mark  14:  15). 
i^  Jewish  home  life  was,  as  compared  with  that  of 
other  nations,  unusually  pure  and  attractive.  Though 
polygamy  was  allowed,  especially  in  the  case  of  a 
childless  wife  or  deceased  brother's  widow,  it  was 
unusual.  Marriage  took  place  early  (rarely  later  than 
at  the  age  of  twenty  for  the  man)  ;  and  betrothal  was 
as  binding  as  marriage,  i.e.,  to  dissolve  a  betrothal  re- 
quired a  regular  divorce  proceeding,  and  unchastity  in 
this  relation  was  the  same  as  adultery.  Divorce,  how- 
ever, could  be  obtained  for  very  petty  causes.  The 
position  of  woman  among  the  Jews  was  high;  and  the 
relation  of  the  wife  to  her  husband,  and  of  parents  to 
their  children,  was  on  a  level  with  that  of  Christians  in 
later  days.  The  home  in  Nazareth  with  Joseph  and 
Mary  at  its  head  must  have  been  in  many  ways  an  ideal 
one. 

In  Matt.  13  :  55-56  we  read  of  Jesus'  brothers,  four 
in  number,  and  of  His  sisters.  What  their  exact  rela- 
tion to  Him  was,  is  a  matter  of  dispute.  The  Protes- 
tant Church,  with  many  exceptions,  holds  that  they 


THE  YEARS  AT  NAZARETH  61 

were  the  children  of  both  Joseph  and  Mary.  Matt,  i : 
25  and  Luke  2 : 7  naturally  imply  this ;  and  it  seems 
to  have  been  the  opinion  of  the  early  Church, — at  least 
there  is  nothing  to  disprove  it.  The  Greek  Church 
says  they  were  the  children  of  Joseph  by  a  former 
marriage.  This  is  a  very  old  view  found  in  the  Prote- 
vangelium  of  Janies,  and  it  suits  well  the  situation  in 
John  7 : 3-5.  The  Latin  Church  says  they  were  the 
children  of  the  sister  of  Mary  or  of  Joseph.  The 
Greek  word  for  brothers  and  sisters  might  be  used  for 
cousins,  i.e.,  blood  relations.  This  was  the  view  set 
forth  by  Jerome  and  St.  Augustine.  The  question  is 
largely  one  of  sentiment;  and  a  decision  is  biased  by 
one's  attitude  towards  celibacy  and  the  worship  of 
Mary.  Its  practical  bearings  are  on  the  associations  of 
the  home  at  Nazareth,  and  also  on  the  question  whether 
the  apostle  JameSj_the^son  of  ^Iphaejus,  is  the  same  as 
James  "  the  brother  of  the  Loxd,"  who  was  leader  of 
the  church  in  Jerusalem  and  probably  author  of  the 
Epistle  of  James.      _ 

3.   The  Training  of  Jesus. 

The  boyhood  of  Jesus  was  a  normal  one  with  definite 
stages  of  growth.  Luke  emphasizes  this  (2  :  40,  52)  ; 
and  he  uses  appropriate  terms  to  mark  different 
stages, — babe  (2:  16),  child  (2:  21-40),  the  boy  Jesus 
(2:41-3),  and  Jesus  (2:52).  He  was  not  a  mon- 
strous and  unnatural  being,  such  as  the  Apocryphal 
Gospels  portray.  He  was  the  ideal  child  and  youth, 
advancing  in  "  wisdom  and  stature  [or  age] ,  and  in 
favor  with  God  and  men  " ;  and  His  training  was  that 
of  a  Jewish  lad, 

Josephus  says  of  his  nation,  "  Our  chief  ambition 
is  to  educate  our  children  well " ;  and  unquestionably 


62  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST; 

"  in  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  education,  the 
Hebrew  nation  was  at  that  time  the  most  highly  edu- 
cated people  in  the  world  "  (Ramsay).  The  education 
began  in  the  home  at  the  earliest  possible  period. 
Parents  taught  their  little  children  the  Shema  and  other 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  instructed  them  in 
the  lessons  of  the  home  life.  This  was  a  duty  expressly 
enjoined  in  Deut.  ii :  19  and  elsewhere. 

The  education  of  girls  seems  to  have  been  confined 
to  home  instruction  with  what  they  gathered  at  syna- 
gogue services  and  the  like;  for  the  rabbis  did  not 
approve  of  advanced  education  for  women.  But  for 
the  boys  in  every  village  was  a  school,  usually  held  in 
the  synagogue  and  taught  by  the  chazzan, — though 
there  is  some  question  as  to  this  last  point.  The  teacher 
was  supported  by  the  congregation,  and  was  not  al- 
lowed to  take  fees  from  his  pupils,  that  there  might  be 
no  favoritism  to  the  rich. 

At  the  age  of  six  or  seven  a  boy  began  to  attend 
school,  where  he  was  taught  to  read  and  write,  and 
given  some  elementary  instruction  in  arithmetic  and 
geography.  The  one  textbook  was  the  Hebrew  Old 
Testament,  concerning  which  Josephus  says,  "  We  have 
not  (as  the  Gentiles)  an  innumerable  number  of  books, 
disagreeing  from  and  contradicting  one  another;  but 
only  twenty-two  books  which  contain  the  records  of  all 
the  past  times"  (Contra  Apion  1:8).  The  boy  be- 
gan his  study  with  Leviticus,  passing  thence  to  the 
other  books  of  the  law,  then  to  the  prophets,  and 
finally  to  the  remaining  writings  of  the  sacred  collec- 
tion. Aramaic  had  taken  the  place  of  Hebrew  as  the 
living  language  of  the  Jews,  and  must  have  been  taught 
in  the  schools.  Greek  was  used  in  Palestine  as  the 
international  tongue;  there  was  a  Greek  version  of 


THE  YEARS  AT  NAZARETH  63 

the  Old  Testament  (the  Septuagint),  and  many  of  the 
popular  apocalyptic  books  were  in  Greek.  Though  it 
would  not  be  taught  in  the  synagogue,  there  is  reason 
to  believe  that  Jesus,  with  His  eager  thirst  for  knowl- 
edge (Luke  2  :  46),  learned  to  read  and  speak  it.  His 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  are  mostly  accord- 
ing to  the  Septuagint, — though  this  may  have  been  the 
form  given  them  by  the  evangelists.  He  was  familiar 
with  the  ideas  expressed  in  the  apocalyptic  books,  and 
Luke  1 1  :  49  seems  to  be  a  direct  quotation  from  some 
one  of  them.  In  His  conversation  with  Pilate,  unless 
an  interpreter  was  present,  He  probably  used  Greek. 
That  He  ever  read  any  Gentile  books  is  unlikely;  but 
Gentile  thought  pervaded  the  atmosphere  of  Galilee, 
and  He  could  not  keep  from  breathing  it  in.  Latin, 
also,  had  some  currency  in  Palestine  through  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Romans :  but  we  can  hardly  suppose  that 
Jesus  ever  learned  it.  The  inscription  above  the  cross, 
however,  was  in  Latin  as  well  as  in  Greek  and  Aramaic. 
Though  a  complete  set  of  the  parchment  rolls  of  the 
Old  Testament  books  would  be  far  too  expensive  for  a 
poor  man  like  Joseph,  yet  some  of  them  may,  through 
inheritance  or  purchase,  have  been  the  chief  treasure  of 
his  home.  The  books  from  which  Jesus  quotes  most 
frequently  in  later  years  are  Deutermiomyi^Psalras  arid 
_Isaiah;  and  His  familiarity  with  them  may  justify  the 
inference  that  they  were  the  scriptures  owned  by  the 
family;  still,  the  fact  that  their  teachings  are  most 
closely  in  harmony  with  His  own  thought  would  be 
sufficient  explanation  of  His  frequent  reference  to 
them.  Unquestionably  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  familiar  to  Him ;  and  we  can  hardly  over-estimate 
the  value  and  influence  of  its  study. 


64.  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

4.   The  Visit  to  the  Temple. 

The  Apocryphal  Gospels  are  full  of  grotesque  or 
revolting  stories  of  Jesus'  boyhood.  Luke's  silence  and 
also  the  high  character  of  the  one  story  he  does  tell 
(2:41-50)  are  strong  proofs  of  the  accuracy  of  his 
account.  This  story  is  of  the  greatest  interest  to  us 
because  it  is  the  only  glimpse  of  the  mind  of  Jesus 
before  His  public  ministry;  and  it  throws  some  light 
upon  the  problem,  To  what  extent  did  He  realize  in 
His  years  at  Nazareth  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God? 
or,  to  state  it  in  another  form,  How  fully  developed 
was  His  Messianic  consciousness? 

At  about  the  age  of  thirteen  (i.e.,  at  puberty),  a 
"f"  boy  became  a  son  of  the  law;  in  other  words,  the  re- 
sponsibility for  keeping  the  law  was  then  transferred 
from  his  father  to  himself.  Naturally,  it  was, — and 
among  pious  Jews  still  is, — a  time  of  deep  religious 
experience,  dominated  by  a  recognition  of  personal 
relationship  and  accountability  to  God.  At  this  stage 
of  His  life  Jesus  went  with  His  parents,  probably  for 
the  first  time,  to  Jerusalem  for  the  feast  of  the  Pass- 
ever.  The  feast  lasted  seven  days;  but  the  first  two 
were  the  most  important,  and  many  pilgrims  left  on  the 
third  day.  And  as  it  was  only  during  feast-days  that 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  taught  in  the  outer  court  of 
the  temple,  Mary  and  Joseph  with  their  companions 
hut  without  Jesus  must  have  started  homeward  on  the 
third  day;  for  three  days  later, — a  day  out,  a  day  back 
and  a  day  of  search, — they  found  Him  in  the  midst  of 
these  teachers,  both  hearing  them  and  asking  them 
questions. 

Their  astonishment  at  finding  Him  there  and  thus 
occupied  was  natural;  no  other  boy  of  twelve  would 


THE  YEARS  AT  NAZARETH 


65 


have  preferred  the  society  of  these  grave  rabbis  to  all 
the  novel  sights  and  excitements  of  the  great  city.    His 
choice  reveals  a  deep  thirst  for  instruction  in  the  Scrip- 
tures —for  answers  to  questions  too  hard  for  the  syna- 
gogue teachers  at  Nazareth  but  professedly  within  ^e 
power  of  these  great  doctors  at  Jerusalem.     Did  He 
now  have  His  first  revealing  experience  of  the  barren- 
ness of  the  rabbinical  teachings?     And  on  the  other 
hand  there  is  a  note  of  surprise  in  His  own  reply  to 
His  parents,  "  How  is  it  that  ye  sought  me?    Knew  ye 
rot  that  I  must  be  in  my  Father's  house?"     V/ith 
childlike  simplicity  He  had  taken_ior..granted  thatjhey.-  , 
would  not  think  of^oking  for  Him  in  any  other  place,     T 
because  lhey__^would  agree  with  Him  that  it  was  His 
cTjty  to  tarrj  there  until  they  ^ave  thg^signal  to  begin 
tlTe  hom'eward  journey,^  It  shows  confident  expectation 
thafthey  would  svmpathize  with  His  deepest  religious 
aspirations;  and  thus  it  throws  light  on  the  close  com-  ^ 
panionship  of  the  Nazareth  family.  _ 

That  the  rabbis  should  pay  attention  to  the  boy  is 
not  surprising.    Thev  liked  to  get  the  impression  made 
upon  a  bright  child's  mind  by  problems  of  the  law. 
Josephus  says,  "  When  I  was  a  child  and  about  four- 
teen years  of  age.  I  was  commended  to  all  by  the  love 
I  had  for  learning;  on  which  account  the  highpriests 
and  principal  men  of  the  city  came  then  frequently  to 
me  together,  in  order  to  know  my  opinion  about  the 
accurate    understanding    of    points    of    the    Law, 
(Life   2)      The  amazement  of  those  who  hstened  to 
Jesus  was  aroused,  not  by  His  display  of  supernatural 
wisdom  (such  as  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  attribute  to 
the  child) ,  but  by  His  quick  intelligence.  His  originality 
and  independence,  and  the  profound  spiritual  life  re- 
vealed in  His  questions  and  answers.    The  soul  of  the 


66  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST, 

boy  was  stirred  to  its  depths  by  His  new  responsibility 
as  son  of  the  law,  by  this  first  visit  to  the  city  of  David 
and  the  magnificent  temple,  by  all  the  incidents  of  the 
feast,  and  by  intercourse  with  the  revered  teachers  of 
Israel.  That  which  had  been  latent  at  Nazareth  was 
now  brought  to  light. 

In  the  first  recorded  words  of  Jesus,  the  most  signifi- 
cant thing  is  His  use  of  "  my  Father  "  as  the  name  for 
God.  What  did  the  boy  mean  by  it  ?  To  suppose  that 
He  had  in  mind  the  unique  relationship  set  forth  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is  contrary  to  the  conclusion 
that  His  boyhood  was  the  ideal  human  boyhood.  While 
we  may  fully  believe  in  His  divinity,  such  clear  con- 
sciousness of  it  in  childhood  would  make  impossible 
His  normal  development  from  infancy  to  manhood. 
In  later  days  Jesus  taught  His  disciples  to  use  "  Fa- 
ther "  as  the  name  which  best  expresses  God's  relation- 
ship and  loving  attitude  to  man.  This  fatherhood  of 
God  is  sometimes  claimed  to  be  a  special  Christian 
doctrine ;  but  it  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  though 
only  a  few  in  the  days  of  Jesus  seem  to  have  discov- 
ered it.  He  certainly  would  be  one  of  those  few;  and 
we  may  suppose  that  when  now  He  spoke  of  "  my 
Father,"  He  meant  exactly  what  He  wishes  us  to  mean 
when  He  tells  us  to  say  "  our  Father."  Such  a  mean- 
ing has  become  so  familiar  to  us  that  we  expect  even  a 
child  to  grasp  it;  but  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  the  wisest 
rabbis  at  Jerusalem  taught  that  God  dwells  far  apart 
from  man,  that  He  is  to  be  feared  rather  than  loved, 
and  that  His  most  significant  name  is  one  too  holy  to 
be  uttered.  We  can  well  understand  why  they  were 
filled  with  amazement  at  the  little  lad  who  sat  in  their 
circles,  and  in  the  simplest,  sincerest  way  spoke  of  God 
as  His  Father.    Did  they  realize  how  those  words  con- 


THE  YEARS  AT  NAZARETH  67 

tradicted  all  their  cherished  ideas  about  the  trans- 
cendent deity,  and  also  how  they  revealed  the  most 
intimate  divine  life  in  Him  who  used  them  thus  natu- 
rally? 

5.    The  Years  of  Obscure  Toil. 

For  most  boys,  school  life  ended  when  they  were 
twelve  or  fourteen.  Only  a  favored  few  passed  from 
the  synagogue  schools  to  the  higher  schools  taught  by 
the  rabbis,  mainly  in  Jerusalem.  These  higher  schools 
were  designed  for  future  teachers  of  the  law.  Paul 
attended  one  (Acts  22  :  3)  ;  but  Jesus  never  did.  John 
7:  15,  "  How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  having  never 
learned?"  indicates  the  surprise  of  His  hearers  that 
Jesus,  without  having  been  trained  in  a  school  of  the 
rabbis,  could  assume  the  position  of  a  teacher. 

It  would  seem  that  Joseph  died  in  the  early  manhood 
of  Jesus,  since  we  hear  nothing  more  about  him,  and 
the  tradition  is  that  he  was  much  older  than  Mary.  If 
so,  the  burden  of  the  support  of  the  mother  and  also 
of  the  younger  children, — if  we  accept  the  usual  Protes- 
tant view  of  His  "  brothers  and  sisters," — must  have 
fallen  largely  upon  Jesus,  forcing  Him  to  fill  His  days 
with  constant  labor  as  "  the  carpenter."  There  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  He  prospered  in  His  trade, 
reaping  the  fruits  which  come  to  ability,  industry  and 
integrity;  and  possibly  His  brothers  and  other  work- 
men may  have  been  in  His  employ.  "  The  skill  with 
which  He  trained  and  sent  forth  His  disciples  indicates 
that  He  was  accustomed  to  directing  men;  and  sev- 
eral of  the  parables,  e.g.,  that  of  the  talents,  or  of  the 
equally  paid  laborers,  or  of  the  two  sons  who  were 
asked  to  work  for  their  father,  represent  the  point  of 
view  of  the  employer  rather  than  that  of  the  em- 


68  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

ployed"  (Kent).  Nazareth  was  a  small  place;  but 
Capernaum,  which  was  only  twenty  miles  away,  offered 
more  opportunities  for  artisans;  and  there  are  indi- 
cations that  at  the  time  of  the  public  ministry  the 
brothers  of  Jesus  were  no  longer  living  in  Nazareth, 
and  that  Capernaum  was  a  second  home  of  the  family 
(Mark  6:3,  2:1;  Matt.  4:  13).  Some  business  ven- 
ture may  have  caused  the  brothers  to  remove  to  Caper- 
naum ;  and  if  so,  they  would  do  it  with  the  counsel  and 
co-operation  of  Jesus. 

One  thing  is  certain, — Jesus,  living  in  Galilee,  was 
in  the  broad  current  of  the  world's  thought  and  action, 
and  could  not  escape  intimate  acquaintance  with  it. 
Those  who  picture  Him  as  a  gentle  dreamer,  shut 
away  from  all  knowledge  of  the  stress  and  struggle  of 
business  and  politics,  unable  to  appreciate  the  tempta- 
tions or  the  opportunities  of  active  life,  deliberately 
ignore  His  actual  environment.  Galilee  was  one  of 
the  centers  of  the  Roman  world,  the  crossing-place 
of  many  famous  highways,  "  along  which  caravans 
passed,  and  legions  marched,  and  princes  swept  with 
their  retinues,  and  all  sorts  of  travellers  from  all  coun- 
tries went  to  and  fro."  It  was  a  land  filled  with 
cities,  and  teeming  with  people.  It  bordered  upon  lands, 
like  Phoenicia  and  the  Decapoli?,  that  were  famous 
for  trade  and  rich  in  Greek  civilization;  and  it  was 
permeated  with  their  influence.  As  George  Adam 
Smith  points  out,  "  all  the  rumor  of  the  empire  entered 
Palestine  close  to  Nazareth — the  news  from  Rome, 
about  the  emperor's  health,  about  the  changing  influ- 
ence of  the  great  statesmen,  about  the  prospects  at 
court  of  Herod  or  of  the  Jews,  about  Caesar's  last 
order  concerning  the  tribute,  or  whether  the  policy 
of  the  procurator  would  be  sustained.     Many  Galilean 


THE  YEARS  AT  NAZARETH 


69 


families  must  have  had  relatives  in  Rome;  Jews  would 
come  back  to  this  countryside  to  tell  of  the  life  of  the 
world's  capital.    Moreover,  the  scandals  of  the  Herods 
buzzed  up  and  down  these  roads ;  pedlars  carried  them, 
and  the  peripatetic  rabbis  would  moralize  upon  them. 
The  customs,  too,  of  the  neighboring  Gentiles,— their 
loose  living,  their  sensuous  worship,  their  absorption 
in  business,  the  hopelessness  of  the  inscriptions  on  their 
tombs,  multitudes  of  which  were  readable  (as  some  are 
still)  on  the  roads  round  Galilee,— all  this  would  fur- 
nish endless  talk  in  Nazareth,  both  among  men  and 
boys  "    Jesus  in  such  an  environment  was  in  constant 
contact  with  the  great  world  and  its  problems;  and 
whatever  we  may  say  concerning  the  attitude  He  took 
toward  the  affairs  of  life,  we  certainly  cannot  say 
that  He  took  it  because  of  ignorance. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  and  significant  facts 
in  the  Hfe  of  Jesus  is  His  sinlessness.    The  challenge 
put  by  Him  to  the  rulers  of  Jerusalem,  "  Which  of 
you  convicteth  me  of  sin?"   (John  8:46),  has  been 
taken  up  by  certain  men  of  recent  times,  and  they  have 
tried  to  find  in  the  words  and  deeds  of  His  public 
ministry  some  flaw  or  lapse  or  least  defect  that  would 
stain  the  perfect  purity  of  His  character;  but  the  ver- 
dict of  the  world  is  that  this  search  has  been  in  vain, 
and  that  Jesus  remains,  indeed,  "the  Crystal  Christ 
Though  we  have  no  record  of  His  years  in  Nazareth, 
we  are  confident  that  the  same  sinlessness  was  dis- 
played in  them;  for,  in  His  self-revelation  to  His  dis- 
ciples and  the  world,  there  is  no  slightest  mark  01 
penitence  for  an  imperfect  past,  and  no  trace  of  the 
strain  and  anguish  by  which  men  "  rise  on  stepping- 
stones  of  their  dead  selves  to  higher  things."     The 
standard  of  obedience  to  the  Father  which  He  set  for 


70  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

us  is  so  high  that  it  arouses  in  the  best  of  men  a  sense 
of  failure  and  self-condemnation;  yet  He  said,  with 
evident  sincerity  and  knowledge,  "  I  do  always  the 
things  that  are  pleasing  to  Him  "  (John  8  :  29).  Such 
perfect  obedience  is  for  Him  no  acquired  habit  but 
the  very  instinct  of  His  being,  manifesting  itself  in 
every  portion  of  His  life  from  the  very  first. 

In  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  and  in  the  later  writings 
attempts  have  been  made  to  picture  the  life  of  Jesus 
in  His  home-town;  but  it  is  a  task  beyond  the  highest 
imagination,  and  we  turn  with  relief  from  such  im- 
perfect imaginings  to  the  simple  statement  of  Luke, 
"The  grace  of  God  was  upon  him"  (2:40).  That 
His  life  was  one  in  favor  with  men  as  well  as  with  God 
(Luke  2:  52),  we  can  readily  believe.  The  slowness 
of  His  brothers  in  later  years  to  accept  Him  as  Mes- 
siah is  no  proof  that  His  earlier  days  had  not  won  their 
admiration  and  love;  it  only  shows  that  the  Jewish 
idea  of  what  the  Messiah  would  be  and  do  had  been 
impressed  upon  them  until  they  could  not  easily  set  it 
aside.  The  later  life  of  James,  the  brother  of  Jesus, 
and  the  Epistle  of  James,  if  that  is  by  him,  throw 
an  interesting  light  upon  the  training  received  in  the 
home  at  Nazareth.  We  would  conclude  that  it  was 
strongly  Jewish  and  somewhat  austere;  and  in  it  we 
seem  to  see  the  influence  of  Mary  more  than  of  her 
Son. 

We  are  told  by  Luke  that  when  Jesus  visited  Naza- 
reth during  His  public  ministry,  "  he  entered,  as  his 
custom  was,  into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath  day, 
and  stood  up  to  read"  (4:  16).  What  is  meant  by 
the  statement,  "  as  his  custom  was  "  ?  Certainly  not 
merely  attendance  at  the  synagogue  service ;  this  would 
not  be  worth  mentioning,  since  it  was  the  custom  of 


THE  YEARS  AT  NAZARETH  71 

every  devout  Jew  to  go  to  the  synagogue  on  the  Sab- 
bath. It  may  refer  to  His  practice  of  preaching  in 
the  synagogue  during  this  particular  period  of  His 
ministry  (compare  4:15);  or  it  may  mean  that  in 
earher  days  at  Nazareth  He  was  accustomed  to  read 
the  lesson  and  preach.  In  the  latter  case  we  have  a 
glimpse  of  the  respect  given  Him  by  His  townsfolk. 
The  ruler  of  the  synagogue  often  invited  the  young 
carpenter  to  be  the  reader  and  speaker  in  the  service. 
We  can  well  understand  why  he  did  so. 

The  possible  development  of  the  Messianic  con- 
sciousness during  this  period  of  obscure  toil  in  Naza- 
reth is  best  discussed  in  connection  with  the  baptism. 
of  Jesus  by  John. 


V 

JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

THE  Gospels  give  a  graphic  and  fairly  complete 
account  of  John  the  Baptist.  Had  he  lived  in  Old 
Testament  times  he  would  stand  out  more  distinctly, 
and  we  might  see  clearly  why  it  was  that  Jesus  said 
of  him,  "  Among  them  that  are  born  of  women  there 
is  none  greater  than  John"  (Luke  7:28).  But  he 
remains  to  most  minds  a  dim  and  unimportant  figure 
because  the  proximity  and  glory  of  Jesus  have  caused 
him  to  fade  out  of  sight  like  the  day-star  beside  the 
rising  sun. 

I.    His  Birth  and  Training. 

Luke  tells  the  story  of  his  birth  as  an  introduction  to 
the  birth  of  Jesus.  Briefly  it  is  as  follows : — Zacharias 
is  a  priest  of  the  course  of  Abijah  who,  with  his  wife 
Elisabeth,  herself  of  priestly  descent,  lives  in  a  city  of 
the  hill  country  of  Judea.  Their  life  in  all  things  is 
righteous  and  blameless,  but  is  overshadov/ed  by  one 
supreme  sorrow,  they  have  no  child,  and  old  age  has 
ended  their  hope  of  one.  In  the  regular  order  of  his 
course,  Zacharias  goes  up  to  Jerusalem  to  perform  his 
priestly  duties;  and  while  there  it  is  his  lot  one  morn- 
ing to  enter  the  holy  place  and  burn  incense  upon  the 
altar  at  the  hour  of  prayer.  This  is  the  highest  office 
a  common  priest  can  perform,  and  is  given  to  him  but 
once  in  the  course  of  his  ministry.     We  can  under- 

72 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  Y3 

stand,  therefore,  why  Zacharias  is  filled  with  deep 
emotion  as  he  stands  by  the  altar;  and  why,  as  the 
smoke  of  the  incense  ascends,  typifying  the  prayers  of 
the  people,  there  arises  from  his  own  heart  the  most 
sacred  petition  of  a  devout  Israelite, — that  Jehovah 
may  remember  His  people  by  speedily  sending  the  Mes- 
siah. In  a  vision  the  angel  Gabriel  appears  to  him, 
and  assures  him  that  his  prayer  is  heard,  and  also  that 
he  is  to  have  a  son,  whom  he  must  name  John,  who 
shall  be  the  promised  forerunner  of  the  Messiah.  As 
a  sign  that  the  vision  is  not  an  illusion,  and  that  the 
promise  shall  be  fulfilled,  he  is  stricken  deaf  and  dumb. 
He  remains  in  Jerusalem  until  the  end  of  his  week, 
although  unable  to  take  part  in  the  temple  services 
because  of  his  physical  infirmity,  and  then  returns 
home  where  the  words  of  the  angel  find  their  fulfil- 
ment in  the  pregnancy  of  his  wife.  About  six  months 
later  Mary,  b}^  divine  direction,  comes  to  visit  Elisa- 
beth, who  is  her  kinswoman,  and  remains  with  her  until 
after  the  birth  of  the  child.  When  the  child  is  to  be 
circumcised  and  given  a  name,  the  friends  propose 
that  he  be  called  Zacharias  after  his  father;  but  the 
mother  insists  that  the  name  be  John,  and  the  dumb 
father  writes  out  the  same  name  upon  a  tablet.  Im- 
mediately his  lips  are  unsealed,  and  with  thanksgiving 
to  God  he  proclaims  his  remarkable  experience.  And 
all  those  that  hear  the  story  say  in  fear  and  astonish- 
ment, "What  then  shall  this  child  be?  " 

Luke's  account,  like  his  account  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  must  in  some  way  have  been  derived  from  Mary, 
who  through  her  abode  with  Elisabeth  would  be  fa- 
miliar with  all  these  details.  This  explains  its  minute- 
ness up  to  and  including  the  circumcision  and  naming 
of  the  child,  and  its  silence  concerning  later  events. 


74  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

The  account,  like  that  of  Jesus'  birth,  bears  on  its  face 
the  marks  oi  being  primitive.  For  example,  the  vari- 
ous hymns  express  Jewish  Messianic  ideas  in  the  form 
in  which  they  were  held  by  the  most  devout  and 
spiritually  minded  of  that  time.  It  would  have  been 
difficult  to  compose  them  in  later  days  when  Messianic 
ideas  had  been  largely  transformed  by  Christian 
thought.  The  problems,  therefore,  of  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  this  story  are  practically  the  same  as  those  of 
the  story  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  need  not  be  con- 
sidered a  second  time. 

All  that  we  know  concerning  the  boyhood  of  John 
is  given  in  a  single  verse,  "  The  child  grew  and  waxed 
strong  in  spirit,  and  was  in  the  deserts  until  the  day  of 
his  shewing  unto  Israel"  (Luke  i:8o).  His  aged 
parents  doubtless  died  when  he  was  young,  and  his 
early  manhood  was  spent  in  the  country  regions  of 
Judea.  We  need  not  think  of  him  as  a  hermit,  or 
as  withdrawing  from  all  current  religious  life  and 
thought,  but  simply  as  a  man  of  the  country,  like  the 
prophet  Amos  who  once  lived  in  the  same  region  and 
whose  message  against  popular  sins  was  in  spirit  like 
that  of  John.  We  are  told  (Mark  i :  6)  that,  when  he 
came  forward  to  begin  his  work  of  baptizing,  he  was 
clothed  with  camel's  hair  and  had  a  leathern  girdle 
about  his  loins,  and  his  food  was  locusts  and  wild 
honey.  This  is  simply  the  dress  and  the  food  of  a 
countryman,  and  is  repeated  by  the  Bedouins  of  the 
wilderness  today.  The  other  great  prophet  from  the 
desert,  Elijah,  whose  work  in  many  ways  was  repro- 
duced by  John,  was  clothed  in  similar  fashion  (II 
Kings  1 : 8),  and  doubtless  lived  upon  similar  food. 

In  the  prediction  of  John's  birth  the  angel  said, 
"  He  shall  drink  no  wine  nor  strong  drink  "  (Luke 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  76 

I- 15)  which  means  that  he  was  to  be  under  the 
Nazarite's  vow.  This  vow,  which  might  be  taken  for 
a  definite  period  or,  as  in  John's  case,  for  hfe,  m- 
volved  three  restrictions,— abstinence  from  mtoxicants, 
wearing  the  hair  uncut,  and  avoidance  of  contact  with 
any  corpse  (Num.  6 :  1-8).  Of  course,  these  were  but 
the  outward  signs  of  an  inward  dedication  to  bod  s 
service,  and  in  the  present  instance  showed  that  even 
before  his  birth  John  was  set  apart  to  be  "  the  prophet 

of  the  Most  High."  , 

.     Was  John  taught  by  the  Essenes?    There  is  no  proof 
of  this  though  some,  who  claim  that  the  ideas  of  Jesus 
were  gained  from  the  Essenes  through  John,  would 
have  us  think  so.     It  is  true  that  there  were  settle- 
ments of  Essenes  down  by  the  Dead  Sea  in  this  same 
wilderness  of  Judea.    But  there  is  nothing  to  connect 
John  with  them.    "  The  rule  of  his  life  was  isolation; 
the  principle  of  theirs  was  community"  (Lightfoot). 
John  in  his  preaching  emphasized  spiritual  unclean^ 
ness    while  their  idea  of  sin  was  largely  ceremonial 
impurity.     And  there  is  no  hint  that  the  Essenes  were 
expecting  a  Messiah,  or  were  preparing  themselves 
for  his  reception.     If  John  had  any  teacher  during 
these  years  in  the  wilderness  it  was  the  Book  of  Isaiah. 
This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  most  of  his  ideas 
,  concerning  what  the  Messiah  is  to  be  and  do,  and  also 
concerning  his  own  mission  as  the  forerunner  of  the 
Messiah,  are  taken  from  Isaiah.    And  also  we  notice 
that  later  on,  when  John  is  in  doubt  whether  Jesus  is 
actually  the  Messiah  or  not,  Jesus  refers  him  to  the 
Messianic  prophecies  of  Isaiali  as  now  being  fulhlled 
(Matt.  11:2-8). 


.U 


-V 


76  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 


2.    His  Mission. 


We  do  not  know  just  when  John  began  his  work. 
Luke  dates  it  carefully  (3 :  1-2)  ;  but  none  of  the  dates 
is  exact  excepting  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius,  in 
reckoning  which  we  probably  should  include  his  joint 
reign  with  Augustus;  as  this  began  about  12  a.d.  the 
date  would  be  26  a.d.  which  coincides  with  the  begin- 
ning of  the  procuratorship  of  Pontius  Pilate.  The  sea- 
sgp,  we  may  suppose,  was  autumn ;  for  then  the  multi- 
tudes could  best  come  forth  to  listen  to  John.  The 
place  was  the  lower  valley  of  the  Jordan,  which  was 
included  in  the  wilderness  of  Judea, — a  region  full  of 
associations  with  Elisha  and  Elijah.  Here  could  be 
found  plenty  of  water  for  the  baptism,  and  also  soli- 
tude such  as  John  craved  in  the  intervals  of  his  work. 
Bethany  (John  1:28),  and  Aenon  (John  3:23), 
where  he  was  later,  have  been  variously  identified-; 
evidently  he  changed  his  location  from  time  to  time, 
and  was  not  always  on  the  same  side  of  the  Jordan, 
nor,  indeed,  always  at  the  Jordan. 
Jp-  John's  task,  as  he  gathered  it  from  a  study  of  the 

prophets  and  from  his  knowledge  of  present  conditions, 
was  threefold : — 

i).  To  proclaim  the  nearness  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  in  judgment.  His 
idea  of  the  kingdom  differed  from  the  popular  one 
chiefly  in  emphasis.  What  he  emphasized  in  it  was  not 
the  sensuous  and  political  but  the  spiritual, — the  true 
theocrac}^  the  high  moral  lav/,  the  preparation  of 
heart.  And  because  current  life  was  lacking  in  the 
spiritual,  he  also  emphasized  the  purifying,  judging 
work  of  the  Messiah.  The  still  higher  Christian  idea 
of  the  kingdom  and  the  Messiah  he  did  not  have.    Until 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  77 

his  death  he  stood  outside, — a  herald  but  net  a  mem- 
ber of  the  kingdom. 

2).  To  make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord. 
Both  John  and  the  Pharisees  agreed  that  when  the 
people  were  prepared,  the  Messiah  would  come.  It 
was  a  saying  of  the  rabbis,  "  If  Israel  repent  but  for 
a  single  day,  the  Messiah  will  come  at  once."  But 
while  the  Pharisees  laid  stress  on  ceremonial  fitness, 
John  demanded  only  moral  fitness;  hence  his  cry,  "  Re- 
pent, make  ready."  He  enjoined  no  change  of  outward 
forms,  but  a  change  of  heart  and  life.  And  he  did  not 
try  to  build  up  a  sect  of  followers,  though  such  a  sect 
did  arise  and  survived  his  death;  what  he  labored  to 
bring  about  was  individual  and  national  regeneration. 

3).  To  point  out  the  Messiah  when  finally  he  should 
appear.  This  part  of  his  mission  seems  to  have  dawned 
upon  him  after  he  had  begun  his  work;  and  with  it 
came  the  conviction  that  by  some  visible  sign  he  would 
recognize  the  person  who  was  God's  Anointed  (John 

1:33)- 

What  were  the  results  ?  As  to  i )  he  was  highly 
successful.  Though  the  Pharisees  refused  to  believe 
it,  the  people  generally  held  John  to  be  a  prophet ;  and 
a  prophet  had  long  been  lacking.  His  preaching  was 
with  power  both  because  of  its  message  and  of  its  man- 
ner. The  nation  was  stirred  by  his  proclamation; 
multitudes  thronged  to  hear  him;  and  even  publicans 
and  Roman  soldiers  asked,  "  Teacher,  what  must  we 
do?"  The  enigmatical  statement  of  Jesus, — "From 
the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  now  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  sufifereth  violence  and  men  of  violence  take  it 
by  force"  (Matt.  11:12;  cf.  Luke  16:16),  may  be 
condemnatory  of  the  unhealthy  excitement  aroused  by 
John,  or  else  commendatory  of  the  eagerness  for  Mes- 


78  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST, 

i_  sianic  blessings  shown  by  his  disciples.  As  to  2) 
John  failed.  He  could  awaken  no  sense  of  sin  in  the 
leaders  of  the  people.  They  admitted  that  the  common 
herd  might  need  repentance  and  purification,  but  denied 
the  need  for  themselves.  Having  Abraham  as  their 
father,  they  felt  that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  would 
be  for  them  a  blessing,  and  that  only  Gentiles  need 
dread  it  (Matt.  3:7-9).  And  in  explanation  of  the 
fierceness  with  which  John  denounced  their  professedly 
pious  lives,  they  said,  "  He  has  a  demon  "  (Matt.  11 : 
18).  Among  the  common  people  the  work  of  John, 
though  great,  was  superficial  and  transient;  they  re- 
joiced in  his  light  "  for  a  season  "  (John  5  :  45).    As 

"^  to  3)  he  did  point  out  Jesus;  but  the  announcement,  as 
we  shall  see,  impressed  only  a  few. 

3.    His  Baptism. 

From  what  source  did  John  get  the  idea  of  a  bap- 
tism? Certainly  not  from  the  Essenes  or  the  Phari- 
sees ;  for  their  baptisms  were  often  repeated,  and  were 
purely  ceremonial.  The  protest  of  the  delegation  sent 
from  the  Pharisees,  "  Why  baptizeth  thou,  if  thou  art 
not  the  Christ,  neither  Elijah  nor  the  prophet?" 
(John  1 :  25),  shows  that  they  recognized  this  baptism 
to  be  a  special  one  which  only  a  great  servant  of  God 
could  perform, — something  entirely  distinct  from  the 
ordinary  purifications.  Also  John's  own  title,  the 
baptizer,  shows  that  his  work  was  unique.  Possibly  he 
'T  gained  the  idea  from  the  baptism  (immersion)  of  the 
children  of  Israel  just  before  God  entered  into  a  spe- 
cial covenant  relation  with  them  (Ex.  19:10),  or 
from  the  baptism  (sprinkling)  when  this  covenant  was 
adopted  by  them  (Ex.  24 :  8).  (The  former  reference 
speaks  only  of  washing  garments  but  the  rabbis  agreed 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  79 

that  immersion  of  the  body  was  included.)  If  so,  his 
purpose  was  to  prepare  the  people  for  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  by  emphasizing  anew  their  covenant  relation 
with  God.  More  probably  it  was  the  baptism  (im- 
mersion) of  proselytes  when  received  into  the  Jewish 
faith  that  gave  him  the  idea.  He  would  create  a  people 
for  the  Messiah  by  treating  all  his  countrymen  as  if,  at 
present,  they  were  heathen,  who  must  be  baptized  as 
proselytes  before  they  could  be  admitted  to  the  fold  of 
the  true  Israel. 

What,  then,  did  the  baptism  of  John  signify?  It 
caused  much  discussion  (Mark  11:30).  Mark  and 
Luke  call  it  "  the  baptism  of  repentance  unto  remis- 
sion of  sins";  and  Mark  and  Matthew  state  that 
the  people  confessed  their  sins  at  baptism.  It  cer- 
tainly was  an  outward  expression  of  repentance  and 
turning  from  sin;  nevertheless,  this  could  not  have 
been  its  innermost  idea,  else  Jesus  would  not  have 
sought  it.  John's  work  was  "  to  make  ready  for  the 
Lord  a  people  prepared  "  (Luke  1:17);  and  repent- 
ance with  forgiveness  of  sins  would  be  necessary  in 
such  preparation.  The  outward  washing  with  water 
would  symbolize  the  inward  purifying;  but  if  the  appli- 
cant were  already  purified,  still  the  baptism  would  be 
full  of  significance  as  the  public  act  by  which  he  was 
enrolled  among  those  who  were  willing  and  prepared 
to  accept  the  Messiah  and  belong  to  his  kingdom. 

While  John  distinguishes  his  baptism  with  "  water  " 
from  that  of  the  Messiah  with  "  the  holy  spirit  and  with 
fire,"  we  must  not  read  into  his  words  the  Christian 
idea  of  the  Trinity  and  baptism.  He  was  preaching 
to  his  own  nation ;  and  for  them  the  holy  spirit  was  a 
reverent  name  for  "  God  active  in  the  human  life." 
Such  activity  had  caused  Israel's  glory  in  the  past; 


^ 


80  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

and,  though  for  the  present  it  had  ceased,  the  prophetic 
promise  was  that  it  would  revive  with  the  Messianic 
age  and  cause  its  blessings.  The  announcement,  there- 
fore, that  the  one  coming  after  him  would  baptize 
with  the  holy  spirit,  "  was  the  affirmation  in  another 
form  that  the  Messianic  age  was  at  hand"  (Wood). 
At  the  same  time  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word 
"  spirit  "  was  used  by  John  in  a  figure  setting  forth 
his  conception  of  the  work  of  the  Messiah.  The  figure 
is  that  of  the  threshing  floor  (Luke  3:  16-17).  The 
holy  spirit  is  the  divine  wind,  the  breath  of  Jehovah, — 
an  instrument  of  judgment  according  to  John's  fa- 
vorite book  (Is.  41:16,  24;  11:4), — by  which  the 
chaff  is  winnowed  from  the  grain,  when  the  fire  is 
to  burn  it  up.  John  considered  his  work  of  purifying 
the  nation  to  be  only  a  preliminary  of  the  far  more 
searching  work  by  the  Messiah,  who  acting  as  Je- 
hovah's representative  and  with  powers  supplied  by 
Him  would  thoroughly  cleanse  Israel  from  its  iniquities 
(cf.  Matt.  13:41-43). 

Concerning  the  form  of  John's  baptism  the  statement 
that  John  and  Jesus  went  down  into  the  Jordan  elimi- 
nates aspersion  (sprinkling)  but  still  leaves  the  ques- 
tion open  between  immersion  (dipping)  and  affusion 
(pouring).  His  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism, 
for  Paul  rebaptized  some  who  had  received  it  (Acts 
19:  1-5)  ;  evidently  it  could  not  be,  for  its  significance 
was  different.  So  the  form  is  of  interest  simply  as 
bearing  upon  the  probable  early  form  of  Christian  bap- 
tism; since  it  seems  likely  that  the  apostles,  most  of 
whom  had  been  trained  in  John's  baptism,  would  adopt 
the  same  form  when  they  undertook  the  work  of  Chris- 
tian baptism  after  the  death  of  Jesus. 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  81 

4.    Jesus'  Estimate  of  John. 

John  claimed  nothing  for  himself.  He  was  simply 
the  voice  that  called  attention  to  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah, — ''Vox  praeterea  nihil"  (John  1:19-21). 
No  temptation  to  assume  a  higher  position  had  power 
over  him  (Luke  3 :  15-17).  No  attempt  to  make  him 
jealous  of  Jesus'  greater  success  and  popularity  was 
successful  (John  3  :  26-30). 

The  estimate  of  John  expressed  by  Jesus  was  far  dif- 
ferent. He  was  not  a  reed  swayed  by  popular  opinion, 
nor  a  man  who  sought  his  own  selfish  advantage;  he 
Vv^as  a  prophet  and  much  more, — the  special  forerunner 
of  the  Messiah.  In  the  old  dispensation  he  was  the 
greatest  of  all,  but  less  than  the  lesser  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  (Matt.  11:7-11).  He  initiated  the  great 
and  violent  movement  into  the  kingdom;  and  those 
who  have  spiritual  discernment  may  see  that  he  was  the 
expected  Elijah  (12-14).  His  way,  like  that  of  his 
predecessors,  was  "  the  way  of  righteousness," — the 
way  of  legality,  and  so  not  the  way  of  Jesus  (Matt.  21 : 
32).  In  spirit  and  in  action  he  was  unlike  Jesus, 
though  just  as  unacceptable  to  his  generation  (Luke  7  : 
31  f.).  Yet  there  must  have  been  some  resemblance 
between  the  two,  for  not  only  Herod  but  others  thought 
that  Jesus  was  John  redivivus  (Matt.  14:2,  16:  14). 


•f- 


VI 

THE  BAPTISM  OF  JESUS 

WHEN  distress  is  deepest  and  need  is  sorest,  God 
will  send  the  Messiah  to  deliver  His  people, — 
this  was  the  current  belief,  accepted  by  John  the 
Baptist.  But  in  popular  thought  the  distress  and  need 
were  political,  and  the  Messianic  deliverance  was  from 
the  yoke  of  heathen  oppressors ;  while  in  John's  mind 
the  wretchedness  was  spiritual,  caused  by  sin,  and  the 
deliverance,  which  only  one  far  greater  than  himself 
could  bring  about,  was  a  thorough  purification  of  each 
individual  life.  His  certainty  that  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah  was  close  at  hand  arose,  therefore,  from  his 
conviction  that  now  the  sins  of  the  nation  were  so 
great  that  this  direct  intervention  of  Jehovah  by  His 
Anointed  was  absolutely  necessary.  And  with  sublime 
confidence  he  proclaimed  "  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  at 
hand,"  and  awaited,  from  he  knew  not  what  quarter, 
the  appearing  of  the  King, 

I.    The  Time  and  the  Place. 

How  long  John  had  been  preaching  and  baptizing 
before  Jesus  came  to  him,  we  are  not  told.  The  news 
that  a  prophet  had  appeared  proclaiming  the  near  ad- 
vent of  the  Messiah  would  spread  rapidly,  and  would 
soon  be  carried  to  Galilee;  since  one  of  the  great  high- 
ways from  Jerusalem  to  the  North  ran  near  the  Jordan. 
People  from  the  lake  of  Galilee  joined  the  ranks  of 

82 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JESUS  83 

John's  disciples,  e.g.,  Andrew,  Peter  and  Philip  from 
Bethsaida  (John  i :  44)  ;  and  before  long  the  stir  of 
John's  message  must  have  reached  even  the  quiet  vil- 
lage of  Nazareth.  That  Jesus  was  with  John  some 
brief  time  before  He  was  baptized  is  probable,  and  is 
confirmed  by  the  statement  of  John  3 :  26,  "  He  that 
was  with  thee  beyond  the  Jordan."  He  would  wish  to 
study  John's  work,  and  learn  its  real  nature  before 
endorsing  it ;  and  His  later  references  to  John  do  show 
an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  man  and  his  message. 
But  there  is  nothing  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  in  any 
true  sense  a  disciple  of  John,  or  that  He  gained  His 
message  from  him.  Renan,  who  reconstructs  the  life 
of  Jesus  according  to  his  own  fancy,  imagines  that 
Jesus  had  already  gathered  a  few  disciples  and  begun 
preaching  a  simple  gospel  of  the  kingdom,  when  He 
heard  of  John's  work;  and  that  with  His  disciples  He 
went  to  John,  was  mastered  by  his  strong  influence, 
adopted  baptism  as  a  part  of  His  own  mission,  and 
became  a  laborer  with  John  at  the  sacrifice  of  His 
earlier,  purer  gospel.  There  is  no  evidence  for  this; 
and  David  Smith  properly  pronounces  it  "  the  wildest 
of  vagaries,  destitute  alike  of  reason  and  of  evidence." 
If  we  must  attempt  to  fix  the  exact  time  of  the  bap- 
tism, we  may  say  that  as  John  was  five  or  six  months 
older  than  Jesus,  he  may  have  entered  on  his  work 
that  much  earlier;  so,  if  John  began  in  the  autumn  of 

26  A.D.,  Jesus  was  baptized  in  January  or  February  of 

27  A.D.  The  place  now  pointed  out  as  the  scene  of  the 
baptism  is  a  ford  of  the  Jordan  nearly  east  of  Jericho. 
Like  other  traditional  sites  in  the  Holy  Land,  it  was 
selected  in  later  days  mainly  for  the  convenience  of 
pilgrims,  and  without  regard  to  historical  accurac}^ 
This  special  ford  could  most  easily  be  reached  from 


S4  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Jerusalem,  and  would  satisfy  the  desire  of  those  who 
wished  both  to  see  where  the  children  of  Israel  crossed 
the  Jordan,  and  to  bathe  where  Jesus  was  baptized. 
We  know  that  Jesus  was  baptized  in  the  Jordan  (Mark 
I  :g),  probably  in  the  lower  part  of  the  stream;  but 
the  exact  place  cannot  be  known. 

2.    The  Motive  of  Jesus. 

A  passage  quoted  from  the  Gospel  of  the  He- 
brews,— apparently  the  most  valuable  of  the  lost  gos- 
pels,— runs  thus,  "  Behold,  the  Lord's  mother  and 
brothers  said  to  him,  John  the  Baptist  is  baptizing  for 
remission  of  sins;  let  us  go  and  be  baptized  by  him. 
But  he  said  to  them,  What  sin  have  I  done  that  I  should 
go  and  be  baptized  by  him,  unless,  perhaps,  what  I 
have  now  said  is  ignorance  ?  "  Unfortunately  the  reply 
to  Jesus'  question  is  not  preserved,  so  we  cannot  know 
how  the  writer  solved  the  problem  it  presents.  If 
John's  baptism  meant  simply  purification  from  sin, 
there  was  no  reason  why  Jesus  should  undergo  it.  We 
have,  however,  already  seen  that  the  central  purpose 
of  John's  work  was  to  make  ready  a  people  prepared 
for  the  Messiah  and  his  kingdom ;  and  the  baptism  was 
an  outward  expression  of  that  preparation.  Repent- 
ance with  consequent  forgiveness  of  sins  was  the  pre- 
liminary qualification,  but  was  not  necessary  in  the 
case  of  Jesus.  By  His  sinlessness  and  His  readiness 
to  fulfill  all  righteousness.  He  was  prepared  already; 
and  He  could  claim  a  place  among  the  new  Israel.  His 
only  question  concerning  John's  work  would  be.  Is  it  of 
God  ? ;  when  by  observation  He  was  able  to  answer  this 
affirmatively,  He  would  be  eager  to  share  in  it  by  pre- 
senting Himself  for  baptism. 

>Vhile  Jesus  and  John  were  distant  kinsmen,  it  is 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JESUS  85 

not  likely  they  knew  anything  about  each  other.  The 
birth  of  Jesus  with  all  its  wonders  and  promise  was  a 
sacred  mystery  to  Mary  (Luke  2:  19,  51)  who  prob- 
ably did  not  reveal  it  to  her  child;  and  doubtless  the 
same  reserve  surrounded  John's  birth.  Moreover,  the 
death  of  John's  parents,  and  his  later  life  in  the  coun- 
try, made  communication  between  the  two  families 
unlikely.  Though  the  statement  of  John,  "  I  knew  him 
not  "  (John  i :  33),  cannot  be  taken  to  mean  more  than 
that  John  before  the  baptism  was  ignorant  of  the  Mes- 
sianic mission  of  Jesus,  yet  his  other  statement,  "  I 
have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee  "  (Matt.  3 :  14),  does 
not  imply  an  earlier  acquaintance,  but  may  express 
simply  the  impression  that  Jesus  made  upon  John  at 
the  time  when  He  came  asking  for  baptism.  The  hour 
was  at  the  close  of  some  day's  work,  when  the  multi- 
tude had  departed  (Luke  3:21)  and  there  was  oppor- 
tunity for  intimate  conversation.  John  would  demand 
of  any  applicant  for  baptism  that  he  confess  and  for- 
sake his  sins.  The  answer  of  Jesus  that  He  had  noth- 
ing to  confess  or  forsake  would  surprise  John,  and 
seem  to  indicate  that  Jesus  was  lacking  in  spiritual 
sensitiveness.  But  when  further  questioning  and  con- 
versation showed  that  here,  indeed,  was  one  whose  life 
was  in  perfect  harmony  with  God's  will,  and  whose 
conscience,  though  most  quick,  gave  only  constant  ap- 
proval, then  John  would  be  ready  to  confess  with 
humility,  "  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee." 

3.    The  Vision  and  the  Voice. 

The  baptism  was  an  hour  of  deepest  spiritual  experi- 
ence for  both  John  and  Jesus.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
Baptist  felt  that  here  was  a  uniquely  spiritual  person, 
concerning  whom  he  could  not  help  asking,  "  May  not 


86  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

this  be  the  expected  Messiah?"  On  the  other  hand, 
Jesus  was  passing  through  one  of  the  crises  of  His 
life, — a  fact  which  Luke  indicates  by  his  statement  that 
Jesus,  having  been  baptized,  was  praying  (Luke  3: 
21)  ;  for  Luke  mentions  the  prayers  of  Jesus  only  in 
connection  with  such  crises.  It  was  at  this  hour  that, 
according  to  the  most  ancient  account,  "  he  saw  the 
heavens  rent  asunder,  and  the  Spirit  as  a  dove  descend- 
ing upon  him;  and  a  voice  came  out  of  the  heavens, 
Thou  art  my  beloved  Son ;  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased  " 
(Mark  i  :  lo-ii).  Were  the  vision  and  the  voice  ob- 
jective, i.e.,  would  an  unsympathetic  bystander  have 
seen  and  heard  anything  or  not?  The  question  is  not 
important  because,  whatever  the  objective  facts  may 
have  been,  it  was  the  subjective  that  were  influential — 
not  what  reached  the  eye  and  ear  of  Jesus  and  John, 
but  what  made  an  impress  upon  their  souls.  And  if 
we  reject  the  objective  reality,  we  do  not  thereby  deny 
all  reality,  nor  make  the  event  less  truly  divine.  The 
argument  that  the  experience  was  subjective  seems  the 
stronger,  e.g.,  in  Matthew  the  voice  is  addressed  to 
John,  in  Mark  and  Luke  it  is  addressed  to  Jesus ;  also, 
Matthew  says  "  the  heavens  were  opened  unto  him," 
as  if  it  were  to  him  alone, — indeed,  some  old  manu- 
scripts omit  the  words  "  unto  him,"  because  apparently 
the  copyist  felt  that  they  make  the  scene  subjective. 
The  vision  of  Stephen  (Acts  7:56)  was  certainly 
wholly  subjective ;  the  voice  in  John  12  :  28  has  at  least 
a  strong  subjective  element, — the  different  hearers  be- 
ing able  to  grasp  the  message  according  to  their  state 
of  receptivity;  ancl  the  vision  and  voice  at  the  baptism 
would  seem  to  be  of  the  same  character. 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JESUS  87 

4.   The  Revelation  of  the  Messiahship. 

In  the  might  of  strong  conviction  John  had  been 
proclaiming  that  the  Messiah  was  at  hand ;  but  where  ^' 
and  who  he  was  John  did  not  know.  The  study  of  his 
favorite  prophet  had  taught  him  that  the  Messiah 
would  be  anointed  with  the  Spirit  of  God  (Is.  11:2, 
42 :  I,  61 :  i)  ;  and  he  was  looking  for  a  person  who 
was  evidently  thus  anointed  (John  i :  33).  The  vision 
and  the  voice  were  the  revelation  to  him  that  Jesus  was 
the  Messiah.  The  divine  anointing  was  evidenced  by 
the  Spirit  descending  like  a  dove;  and  the  words, 
"  This  is  my  beloved  Son,"  which  were  like  an  echo  of 
Ps.  2 :  7,  made  the  meaning  of  the  act  clear.  Hence- 
forth John's  message  was  changed  from  the  general 
announcement  that  the  Messiah  was  coming,  to  the  still 
more  thrilling  proclamation,  "  In  the  midst  of  you 
standeth  one  whom  ye  know  not, — ^he  that  cometh 
after  me  "  (John  i  :  26  f.). 

Did  this  same  experience  reveal  for  the  first  time  to 
Jesus  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  or  did  it  simply  confirm 
what  He  already  knew?  This  is  a  difficult  question  to 
which  there  are  three  possible  answers : — 

i).    Jesus  knew  all  about  His  mission  as  Messiah      ; 
before  He  came  to  John. 

If  so,  when  did  He  begin  to  know  it?  If  the  divine 
knowledge  was  always  His, — even  when  a  babe  in  the 
cradle, — then  in  no  real  sense  was  He  a  man,  entering 
into  human  experiences;  an  omniscient  child  is  not  a 
human  child.  Moreover,  we  are  expressly  told  that  in 
His  childhood  "Jesus  advanced  in  wisdom"  (Luke 
2 :  52).  Nor  can  we  mep<-  this  difficulty  by  saying  that 
Jesus  as  human  knew  no  more  than  other  human  babes 
or  children,  but  as  divine  knew  all  things.    That  would 


88  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

make  Him  two  entirely  distinct  beings,  thus  destroying 
the  unity  of  His  nature.  But  if  when  a  babe  He  had 
no  Messianic  consciousness,  at  what  date  in  His  life 
previous  to  the  baptism  did  that  consciousness  arise? 
The  baptism  was  certainly  the  most  suitable  event  for 
awakening  it ;  and,  as  we  shall  see,  the  temptation  im- 
mediately after  the  baptism  is  best  explained,  if  we 
suppose  that  now  for  the  first  time  His  Messianic  mis- 
sion was  set  plainly  before  Him. 

''  2).    Jesus  knew  nothing  about  His  mission  as  Mes- 

siah until  the  baptism. 

Wendt  holds  that  the  call  of  Jesus  was  as  unex- 
pected as  that  of  Paul, — the  only  difference  being  that 
Paul's  previous  life  had  been  in  an  opposite  direction 
so  that  the  call  forced  him  to  break  entirely  with  the 
past,  while  for  Jesus  the  call  revealed  a  goal  towards 
which  unconsciously  He  was  already  moving.     Such 

\  ignorance  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  divinity  of  Jesus, 
if  we  suppose  that  when  the  Son  of  God  entered  into 
human  life  He  voluntarily  laid  aside  divine  knowl- 
edge,— as  He  also  laid  aside  divine  power, — in  order 

•  that  He  might  be  fully  one  with  us.  But  even  with  no 
supernatural  knowledge,  it  seems  probable  that  Jesus 
may  have  had,  while  still  in  Nazareth,  at  least  a  glimpse 

•  of  His  future  Messiahship,  As  a  devout  Jew  He 
would  share  in  the  popular  longing  for  the  coming  of 
the  Messianic  kingdom;  though  His  conception  of  that 
kingdom  would  be  far  more  spiritual  than  the  popular 
one.  The  Messiah  of  His  thought  would  be,  not  neces- 
sarily a  superhuman  being  and  certainly  not  an  am- 
bitious earthly  king,  but  rather  the  suffering  servant 
of  Jehovah,  portrayed  by  Isaiah,  whose  mission  was 
to  lead  the  people  with  the  aid  of  the  divine  spirit 
into  all  righteousness.    As  Jesus  in  the  quiet  of  Naza- 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JESUS  89 

reth  pondered  over  these  things  and  yearned  for  the 
salvation  of  Israel,  the  thought  may  well  have  come 
to  Him,  "  What  if  even  I  should  be  the  one  whom  the 
Father  has  chosen  for  this  high  yet  sorrowful  task? 
Would  I  be  ready  to  undertake  it;  and  how  could  I 
know  that  He  had  called  me  ?  "  The  news  that  John 
was  preaching  the  nearness  of  the  Messiah  would 
center  His  thought  still  more  strongly  upon  this  ques- 
tion, and  would  impel  Him  to  seek  out  John  and  listen 
to  his  message.  And  some  hint  of  this  readiness  for 
whatever  mission  God  might  reveal  to  Him  may  per- 
haps lie  in  the  "  Suffer  it  [or  me]  now  "  (Matt.  3  :  15) 
with  which  He  met  John's  unwillingness  to  baptize 
Him.  Indeed,  as  Loisy  says,  "  the  revelation  of  the 
baptism  could  have  been  addressed  only  to  a  spirit 
ready  to  receive  it." 

3).    Jesus  first  clearly  learned  of  His  mission  as  the 
Messiah  at  the  baptism. 

This  follows,  if  we  reject  both  the  foregoing  an- 
swers. Certain  old  manuscripts  give  in  Luke  3 :  22, 
that  which  Harnack  thinks  to  be  the  original  form  of 
the  words  from  heaven,  'Thou  art  my  beloved  Son; 
this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  If  this  form  is  ac- 
cepted, we  are  not  obliged, — contra  Harnack, — to  con- 
clude that  the  divine  birth  must  be  rejected ;  but  we  may 
infer  that  the  baptism  was  the  hour  when  the  Messianic 
consciousness  of  Jesus  was  quickened  into  activity. 
The  voice  from  heaven  was  the  first  positive  and  un- 
mistakable announcement  of  His  Messiahship;  yet  -/- 
previous  years  had  not  been  without  increasingly  clear 
suggestions  of  it.  His  sinlessness.  His  eager  desire  to 
do  the  divine  will  as  He  grew  to  know  that  will.  His 
unbroken  communion  with  a  God  who  to  Him  was  a 
Father,  developed  a  unique  filial  consciousness  which 


u^ 


90  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

made  Him  ever  more  prepared  for  the  awakening  of 
the  Messianic  consciousness.  Luke's  narrative  seems 
to  recognize  three  stages  in  the  spiritual  history  of 
Jesus,  viz. :  that  which  began  with  His  birth,  and  con- 
tinued through  the  years  of  His  childhood  at  Naza- 
reth,— His  life  as  the  son  of  Mary;  next,  that  which 
began  with  the  temple  visit,  and  continued  through  the 
years  of  manhood  at  Nazareth, — His  life  as  a  son  of 
the  Father;  and  finally,  that  which  began  with  the 
baptism,  and  continued  through  His  public  ministry, — 
His  life  as  the  Messianic  Son  of  God.  The  advance 
from  one  to  another  was  not  by  a  total  transformation, 
but  rather  by  the  addition  of  new  spiritual  powers  to 
those  already  possessed.  And  underneath  all  changes 
that  the  years  of  human  growth  produced  was  the 
changeless  submission  of  His  own  will  to  the  will  of 
God.  Because  at  every  stage  in  His  life  He  could 
sincerely  say,  "  I  do  always  the  things  that  are  pleas- 
ing to  Him"  (John  8:29),  the  Father's  voice  could 
proclaim,  "  In  thee  I  am  well  pleased." 


VII 
THE  TEMPTATION   IN   THE  WILDERNESS 

THE  story  of  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness  must 
be  accepted  as  undoubtedly  historical;  for  its 
origin  cannot  otherwise  be  explained.  "  His  disciples 
would  not  have  been  likely  to  think  that  He  could  be 
tempted  to  evil;  and,  if  they  had  supposed  that  He 
could,  they  would  have  imagined  quite  different  tempta- 
tions for  Him,  as  various  legends  of  the  saints  show  " 
(Plummer).  Moreover,  as  Sanday  points  out,  "no 
one  possessed  that  degree  of  insight  into  the  nature  of 
our  Lord's  mission  and  ministry  that  could  have  en- 
abled him  to  invent  it,"  But  the  story  has  seldom 
received  sufficient  attention  from  students  of  the  life  of 
Jesus.  Some  have  affirmed  that  it  transcends  human 
comprehension,  and  that  "  on  the  deep  secrets  of  those 
forty  days  it  is  not  meet  thafspeculation  should  dwell  '^ 
"XEllicott).  Others  have  made  it  little  more  than  the 
experience  of  an  ordinary  man  who,  believing  he  had 
power  to  work  miracles,  struggled  against  a  selfish  in- 
clination to  use  that  power  for  his  personal  ease  and 
glory.  Many  have  spent  more  time  in  discussing  the 
outward  form  of  the  three  temptations  than  in  seeking 
their  inward  meaning.  And  few  have  emphasized  the 
significance  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  told  His  disciples, — 
and  apparently  more  than  once,  since  the  order  of  the 
temptations  varies  in  the  two  accounts  preserved, — the 
full  story  of  His  experience.     It  is  the  only  one  of 

91 


92  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

His  solitary  experiences  that,  so  far  as  we  know,  He 
ever  revealed ;  and  undoubtedly  His  reason  for  reveal- 
ing it  was  that  the  disciples  might  better  understand 
the  way  in  which  His  mission  must  be  performed. 
Garvie  suggests  that  He  told  it  after  the  time  when 
He  had  to  say  to  Peter,  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan  " 
(Mark  8:  33).  It  would,  indeed,  be  helpful  then,  but 
equally  so  on  more  than  one  other  occasion  when  the 
disciples  marvelled  that  He  refused  to  fulfill  the  popu- 
lar Messianic  expectations. 

I.    The  Form  of  the  Story. 

When  we  realize  that  the  story  was  told  by  Jesus 
Himself,  and  is  His  revelation  of  a  spiritual  experi- 
ence, we  shall  not  fall  into  the  mistake  of  those  who 
treat  it  exactly  the  same  as  the  records  of  what  the 
apostles  themselves  saw  and  heard.  The  symbolical 
form  in  which  Jesus  so  often  set  forth  the  facts  of 
the  inner  life  is  the  form  He  adopts  in  this  narrative. 
Its  statements  concerning  Satan  fall  into  line  with  His 
rebuke  to  Peter,  or  His  declarations,  "  I  beheld  Satan 
fallen  as  lightning  from  heaven  "  (Luke  10:  18),  and 
"  Behold,  Satan  asked  to  have  you,  that  he  might  sift 
you  as  wheat"  (Luke  22:31).  Its  other  graphic 
details  are  like  similar  symbolic  pictures  of  spiritual 
experiences,  e.g.,  "  I  have  given  you  authority  to  tread 
upon  serpents  and  scorpions  "  (Luke  10 :  19),  "  I  came 
to  cast  fire  upon  the  earth"  (Luke  12:49),  ^^^  "  ^^ 
thine  eye  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cast  it  out"  (Mark 
9:47).  To  discuss  the  possible  form  assumed  by 
Satan,  or  to  search  for  some  mountain  from  which 
"  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  "  might  be  seen,  is 
worse  than  a  waste  of  time :  it  cheapens  the  story,  and 
makes  it  strange  and  repulsive.    We  may  be  willing  to 


TEMPTATION  IN  THE  WILDERNESS     93 

admit  the  existence  of  Satan  and  his  power  to  present 
temptations ;  but  certainly  a  person  like  Jesus  was  not 
tempted  in  such  a  childish  way. 

The  scene  of  the  temptation  was  doubtless  the  same 
wilderness  of  Judea  in  which  the  baptism  took  place, 
and  was  a  convenient  region  for  one  who  sought  soli- 
tude after  it.  The  length  of  time  may  have  been  forty 
days;  though  that  period  is  so  often  used  as  a  conven- 
tional statement  of  the  duration  of  some  serious  or 
sacred  experience,  that  the  use  of  it  in  the  same  way 
here  is  not  unlikel}'.  The  fast  was  not  deliberate, — 
Jesus  placed  little  value  on  fasting ;  it  was  caused  partly,  f 
by  lack  of  food,  but  far  more  by  mental  and  spiritual 
preoccupation  which  banished  all  thought  of  food. 
And  though  His  final  hunger  suggested  the  form  in 
which  the  first  temptation  Avas  put,  it  was  not  the 
source  of  that  temptation. 

2.    The  Possibility  of  Temptation. 

It  is  sometimes  argued  that  if  the  story  of  the  tempta- 
tion is  true,  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  could  not  have 
been  perfect,  since  temptation  gets  its  power  from  evil 
desires  in  the  heart  of  the  one  tempted,  and  a  sinless 
being  would  feel  no  inclination  to  sin.  This  must  be 
admitted  concerning  one  class  of  temptations.  When 
the  choice  is  presented  between  a  thing  that  is  good 
and  a  thing  that  in  itself  is  evil,  e.g.,  between  using 
another's  money  faithfully  and  embezzling  it,  there 
can  be  no  temptation  unless  a  sinful  desire  is  allowed 
to  sway  the  heart.  But  there  is  another  class  of  tempta- 
tions in  which  the  choice  presented  is  between  two 
things  of  which  both  are  blameless  and  even  excellent, 
but  one  is  better  and  more  difficult,  e.g.,  the  choice 
sometimes  between  a  life  of  home  duties  and  a  life  of 


-I- 


94  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

foreign  mission  work.  In  itself  the  easier  and  more 
attractive  thing  is  not  evil,  and  to  desire  it  is  not 
wrong :  yet  yielding  to  the  desire  is  sinful,  for  it  is 
turning  from  a  greater  good  to  a  lesser.  The  rule  that 
should  govern  all  choices  is  simple :  "  Every  action  is 
right  which  in  the  presence  of  a  lower  principle  fol- 

i'  Tows  a  higher;  every  action  is  wrong  which  in  the 
presence  of  a  higher  principle  follows  a  lower  "  (Mar- 
Jineau).  But  the  choice  between  two  good  things  is 
offeii'  far  more  difficult  than  the  choice  between  a  good 
thing  and  an  evil  thing;  and  it  may  present  to  a  noble 
nature   temptations  inconceivable  by  a  base  nature. 

\^  The  temptations  of  Jesus,  as  we  shall  see,  were  of  this 
character;  and  their  strength  came  from  His  eager 
desire  to  fulfill  His  Messianic  mission  by  bringing  all 
Israel   into  the  kingdom   of   God. 

3.    The  Three  Temptations, 

The  temptations  of  Jesus  are  often  explained  as  a 
threefold  assault  upon  the  three  parts  of  His  human 

^  nature — His  body,  soul  and  spirit — by  the  triple  agency 
of  evil — the  flesh,  the  world  and  the  devil;  the  ap- 
peal being  made  successively  to  the  innocent  human 
desires  to  live,  to  be  recognized,  and  to  accomplish. 
But  such  an  explanation  does  not  give  sufficient  em- 
phasis to  the  significant,  "  If  thou  art  the  Son  of  God," 
with  which  two  of  Satan's  proposals  begin.  This  is 
not  a  suggestion  that  doubt  exists  in  Jesus'  mind ;  for 
doubt,  after  God's  explicit  declaration,  "  Thou  art  my 
beloved  Son,"  would  itself  be  sin;  rather  it  is  an  open 
recognition  of  the  Messiahship  as  the  starting  point  of 
Satan's  assault.    This  "  if,"_Godet  says,  has  almost  the 

'T"  force  of  since.  Christ  is  to  be  tempted,  not  as  the  son 
of  Mary,  but  as  the  Son  of  God, — the  Messiah.    What- 


TEMPTATION  IN  THE  WILDERNESS     95 

ever  may  be  our  opinion  as  to  Jesus'  knowledge  of  His 
Messianic  mission  before  the  baptism,  we  must  agree 
that  the  baptism,  with  the  voice  from  heaven  and  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  brought  that  mission  to  His 
mind  with  overwhelming  force.  He  was  to  be  the 
founder  and  ruler  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  Saviour 
of  mankind.  The  work  this  involved,  vast  as  it  was. 
He  was  ready  to  undertake  unhesitatingly;  for  His 
obedience  to  the  Father's  will  was  perfect.  But  how 
should^ TtlDe" performed?  How  should  He  draw  all 
men  to  Him,  and  win  them  as  subjects  of  a  spiritual 
kingdom?  This  was  the  question  which  must  be 
aifi^"v5fed  before  He  could  enter  upon  the  work;  and 
for  whose  answer  He  sought  solitude  and  opportunity 
for  deepest  meditation.  It  was  the  problem  filling  His 
mind  to  the  exclusion  of  all  else  as  He  wandered  alone 
in  the  wilderness. 

There  were  several  possible  ways  which  presented 
themselves,  all  based  upon  popular  expectations  of  what 
the  Messiah  would  do  when  he  came.  "  If  thou  be  the 
Son  of  God,  command  that  these  stones  be  made 
bread."  The  Jews  were  awaiting  a  Messiah  who 
would  do  miracles  of  that  kind.  His  kingdom,  so  they 
expected,  would  be  an  earthly  paradise.  The  rabbis 
delighted  to  set  forth  the  joys  of  the  Messianic  days, 
telling  with  Oriental  hyperbole  how  a  kernel  of  wheat 
would  be  as  large  as  the  kidney  of  an  ox,  the  trees 
would  bear  fruit  all  the  year  round,  a  single  grape 
would  load  a  wagon,  and  wine  could  be  drawn  from 
it  as  from  a  cask.  Men  were  hungering  and  thirsting 
for  a  Messiah  who  would  work  such  miracles;  and 
such  miracles  were  within  the  power  of  Jesus,  and  in 
themselves  were  perfectly  right.  As  the  Lord  of  / 
nature  He  could  command  it  to  feed  His  followers;    / 


96  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

and  He  could  banish  hunger,  disease  and  death  from 
His  realm.  All  men  would  flock  into  such  a  kingdom ; 
and  His  mission  would  be  speedily  and  easily  accom- 
plished. But  what  of  the  character  of  the  kingdom? 
What  of  subjects  who  serve  for  loaves  and  fishes  ?  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink,  but  righteous- 
ness and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Would 
turning  stones  into  bread  create  this?  Would  it  not 
rather  have  just  the  opposite  effect,  and  make  men 
more  sensuous  and  carnal  than  ever?  There  .could 
be  but  one  answer  to  such  a  question.  The  temptation 
was  recognized  and  put  aside.  "  Man  shall  not  live  by 
bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of 
the  mouth  of  God." 
1  If  men  are  not  to  be  drawn  into  the  kingdom  by 
their  appetites,  may  they  not  be  allured  into  it  by  their 
imaginations  ?  Let  the  Messiah  descend,  borne  on  the 
wings  of  angels,  into  the  courts  of  the  temple  where 
priests  and  rulers  daily  assemble  to  pray  for  his  com- 
ing; and  immediately  the  Sanhedrin  will  accept  him, 
and  the  whole  Jewish  nation  will  follow  their  lead. 
This  is  perfectly  proper;  for  in  what  way  should  he 
use  his  divine  power  to  work  miracles,  if  not  in  prov- 
ing to  men  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God?  They  expect 
this,  and  will  demand  it.  Why  not  meet  their  de- 
mand, and  thus  establish  the  kingdom  promptly  and 
firmly?  But,  again,  what  of  the  nature  of  such  a  king- 
dom? Will  there  be  anything  spiritual  about  it? 
Righteousness,  peace  and  joy, — do  these  come  through 
marvelling  at  miracles?  Can  you  surprise  men,  or 
dazzle  men,  or  scare  men  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven? 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  miracles  which  Jesus  wrought 
in  His  public  ministry  often  seemed  to  hinder  rather 
than  to  help  His  work.     The  excited  crowds  which 


TEMPTATION  IN  THE  WILDERNESS     97 

they  attracted,  elbowed  and  jostled  each  other,  eager 
to  gratify  a  low  craving  for  the  marvellous,  but  show- 
ing no  desire  to  learn  and  follow  truth.  Faith  which 
is  founded  merely  on  miracles  is  vain.  The  despondent 
cry  of  Jesus  in  later  days,  "  Except  ye  see  signs  and 
wonders,  ye  will  not  believe"  (John  4:48),  echoes 
Moses'  expostulation  with  Israel  at  Rephidim  when 
they  tempted  the  Lord,  saying,  "  Is  the  Lord  among 
us  or  not?  "  (Ex.  17:  7).  And  against  any  display  of 
divine  power  to  win  admiration  or  superstitious  follow- 
ing, there  abides  the  command — whose  significance  is 
found  by  studying  the  scene  at  Rephidim — "Thou 
shall  not  make  trialjof  the  Lord  "thy  G04  "   (Deut. 

The  third  temptation  does  not  begin  with  "If  thou 
be  the  Son  of  God,"  because  it  is  concerned,  not  with 
Christ's  use  of  the  divine  power,  but  with  the  char- 
acter of  His  proposed  kingdom.  The  Jews  were 
chafing  under  the  Roman  yoke,  and  ready  to  follow 
any  leader  who  would  promise  them  deliverance.  With 
the  wildest  enthusiasm  they  would  greet  him,  and  lay 
down  their  lives  to  place  him  on  the  throne  of  David. 
Jesus  was  of  royal  descent,  and  might  properly  claim 
the  Jewish  crown.  Why  not  establish  the  kingdom  of 
God  by  first  restoring  the  kingdom  of  David?  Take 
the  sword  to  win  the  scepter;  and  when  this  has  been 
secured,  then  make  all  things  work  together  for  right- 
eousness and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  But 
can  the  political  kingdom  be  secured  except  by  a  sac- 
rifice of  the  spiritual?  Can  a  man  serve  two  masters? 
If  he  would. receive  a  crown  from  the  people,  Jesus 
must  consult  their  selfish  wishes  and  follow  their  lead- 
ing; and  to  do  that  would  in  reality  be  to  bow  before 
the  prince  of  this  world  and  do  his  bidding.    When  that 


-/- 


■t- 


98  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

fact  is  clearly  recognized,  the  temptation  is  overcome, 
and  the  tempter  is  spurned.  "  Get  thee  hence,  Satan ; 
for  it  is  written.  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God, 
and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve." 

This  brief  outline  of  the  three  temptations  is  suffi- 
^  ,i|Cient  to  show  their  official  character.     They  may  be 
iprofitably  studied  in  their  relation  to  Christ's  three 
i  (offices   of  prophet,   priest  and  king.     As  a  prophet 
/He  must  feed  the  hungry  multitude  with  the  Word  of 
(God  instead  of  giving  them  stones  made  bread.     As 
a  priest  He  must  offer  "  a  body  bruised  for  our  in- 
iquities "  instead  of  one  that  angels  bear  up  in  their 
hands.     And  as  a  king  He  must  ever  proclaim,  "  My 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world." 

4.    The  Later  Repetitions. 

It  is  a  familiar  thought  that  the  temptations  of  the 
wilderness  were  set  before  Jesus  again  in  His  public 
ministry.  Luke  suggests  this  by  his  significant  state- 
ment, "  When  the  devil  had  ended  the  temptation,  he 
departed  from  him  for  a  season  "  (4:  13).  We  shall 
find  in  our  study  of  the  various  fields  in  which  Jesus 
worked,  not  only  that  all  these  temptations  were  pres- 
ent, but  that  some  particular  one  in  each  field  pre- 
dominated and  shaped  the  issue.  In  Judea  the  rulers 
demanded  a  sign ;  in  Galilee  the  people  were  clamorous 
for  relief  from  bodily  ills  and  physical  wants;  in 
Peraea  and  the  coasts  the  constant  expectation  was  of 
a  political  kingdom.  And  we  shall  find  the  work  in 
each  terminated  by  an  act  that  seemed  to  be  a  sur- 
render to  the  dominant  temptation,  but  really  was  a 
rejection  and  exposure  of  it.  In  Judea  this  was  the 
healing  of  the  impotent  man  at  Bethesda;  in  Galilee 
it  was  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand;  in  the  final 


TEMPTATION  IN  THE  WILDERNESS     99 

ministry  it  was  the  triumphal  entry.  Such  being  the 
case,  we  can  understand  why  Jesus  related  to  His  dis- 
ciples so  fully  the  struggle  in  the  wilderness,  though 
He  said  nothing  about  His  other  solitary  experiences. 
He  was  endeavoring  by  this  revelation  to  make  them 
understand  the  nature  of  the  struggles  they  witnessed 
in  His  public  ministry,  and  to  see  in  these  the  same 
temptations  that  Satan  had  presented  at  the  outset. 
Also  we  find  abundant  reason  for  emphasizing  this 
chapter  in  our  Lord's  life.  It  was  the  time  when  with 
deepest  care  He  weighed  and  rejected  the  popular  Mes- 
sianic ideas,  and  accepted  a  higher  ideal  of  what  the 
Messiah's  work  and  kingdom  must  be.  When  he  went 
forth  from  the  wilderness,  the  path  henceforth  to  be 
followed  lay  clearly  before  Him.  In  the  days  of  His 
public  ministry  we  shall  see  Him  more  than  once 
changing  His  plans  of  work  and  altering  the  emphasis 
of  His  teachings,  as  conditions  changed  or  the  needs  of 
His  hearers  varied;  but  we  shall  find  no  convincing 
proof, — though  many  have  sought  it, — that  He 
changed  His  own  purpose  and  convictions,  or  received 
new  light  upon  His  mission.  His  invitations  were  to  be 
rejected;  His  plans  were  to  be  frustrated;  His  own 
nation,  instead  of  being  His  helpers  in  establishing  the 
kingdom  of  God,  were  to  compass  His  death : — all  this 
was  beyond  His  present  knowledge,  for  who  can  fore- 
see the  wayward  action  of  the  human  will?  But  no 
change  for  good  or  evil  in  the  hearts  of  men  would 
bring  a  new  revelation  of  His  Father,  or  alter  the 
settled  rule  of  His  life :  "  I  do  always  the  things  that 
are  pleasing  to  Him  "  (John  8 :  29). 


+ 


VIII 
THE  FINAL  PREPARATION 

I.   The  Witness  of  John  the  Baptist. 

JESUS  left  John  immediately  after  the  baptism 
(Mark  i:  12);  and  there  is  no  record  that  they 
ever  again  talked  together.  The  work  of  John  went 
on  for  weeks  with  increased  energy  and  with  a  new 
message,  "  The  Messiah,  though  you  know  him  not,  is 
in  your  midst  "  (John  i :  26).  The  conception  of  the 
Messiah  as  living  in  concealment  and  then  suddenly 
coming  forth  was  a  popular  one  (cf.  John  7:  27),  and 
gave  force  to  John's  words.  Such  a  startling  Messianic 
proclamation  could  not  be  ignored  by  the  Sanhedrin, 
especially  by  its  Pharisaic  members  (John  i :  24)  ;  and 
since  John  was  of  priestly  family  they  sent  a  committee 
of  priests  and  Levites  to  investigate.  It  came  to  John 
with  the  question,  "  Who  art  thou?  " 

The  hour  was  one  of  temptation  for  the  Baptist, — 
a  temptation  springing,  like  that  of  his  Master,  out  of 
an  earnest  desire  to  bring  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  If 
only  he  could  claim  special  authority  for  himself,  how 
much  more  weight  would  be  added  to  his  message! 
The  temptation  grew  greater  with  each  suggestion  of 
the  committee.  "Art  thou  the  Messiah?":  that  had 
already  been  set  before  him  by  the  people  and  had  its 
answer  ( Luke  3  :  1 5  f . )  ;  so  now  it  was  easy  to  say, 
"  I  am  not."  "  Art  thou  Elijah?  " :  if  they  were  will- 
ing to  receive  him  as  such  (cf.  Matt,  it  :  14),  he  could 
do  the  work  that  Malachi  had  foretold  Elijah  would 

100 


THE  FINAL  PREPARATION  101 

do  (Mai.  4:5).  "Art  thou  the  prophet?",  i.e.,  the 
one  foretold  in  Deut.  18:  15,  who  would,  so  the  Jews 
expected,  usher  in  the  Messianic  period :  surely  he 
could  claim  as  much  as  that  for  himself;  and  what 
power  it  would  give  him !  With  increasing  brevity- 
John  put  these  temptations  away,  remaining  faithful 
to  his  one  commission  as  "  the  voice  in  the  wilder- 
ness,"-r— the  impersonal  herald  of  the  Messiah.  If  we 
were  to  accept  Renan's  theory  that  Jesus,  in  order  to 
increase  His  influence,  allowed  the  people  to  cherish  a 
false  belief  that  He  was  the  Messiah  and  could  work 
miracles,  then  we  must  pronounce  John  more  honest 
and  unswerving  than  his  Master. 

This  happened  in  Bethany  beyond  the  Jordan,  which 
probably  was  at  a  ford  of  the  river  about  twelve  miles 
south  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  a  day's  journey  from 
Nazareth.  John  had  moved  northward  since  he  bap- 
tized Jesus.  The  day  was  the  first  of  a  week  ending 
with  the  marriage  at  Cana;  and  if,  as  Edersheim  sug- 
gests, the  marriage  was  on  Wednesday,  which  was 
usually  chosen  for  a  maiden's  wedding,  the  day  would 
be  the  preceding  Thursday. 

On  the  next  day  (Friday)  Jesus,  who  had  finished 
His  temptation  in  the  wilderness  and  was  on  His  way 
to  Nazareth,  came  where  John  was  preaching,  and 
naturally  drew  near  to  hear  what  message  the  Baptist 
was  proclaiming.  If  John  had  yielded  to  the  tempta- 
tion of  the  previous  day,  and  was  now  figuring  as 
Elijah  the  Second  or  the  prophet  whom  Moses  foretold, 
we  can  imagine  the  confusion  which  would  have  over- 
whelmed him,  when  he  suddenly  saw  Jesus  approach- 
ing. But  John  had  been  faithful  to  his  mission ;  and, 
as  Jesus  appeared  in  the  edge  of  his  audience,  he 
eagerly  pointed  Him  out :  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God! 


102  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

There  is  the  one  whom  I  foretold, — the  one  upon  whom 
I  beheld  the  spirit  descending!  "  (John  i  :  29-34). 

The  term  "  Lamb  of  God  "  as  a  name  for  the  Mes- 
siah was  taken  by  John  from  Isaiah  53 :  7.  Its  use  at 
this  time  may  indicate  the  impression  Jesus  had  made 
upon  him  when  they  talked  together  before  the  bap- 
tism. Whether  the  additional  words,  "  that  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  were  spoken  by  the  Baptist 
or  are  the  interpretation  of  the  term  by  the  author  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  is  disputed.  It  is  difificult  to  be- 
lieve that  the  Baptist  could  have  had  such  a  clear  idea 
of  the  world-wide  mission  of  the  Messiah;  yet  there 
are  glimpses  of  that  mission  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah; 
and  John, — as  his  preaching  to  Gentile  soldiers  and  to 
publicans  indicates, — had  pressed  beyond  the  narrow 
limits  of  Jewish  race  prejudice.  The  wonderfully 
high  praise  which  Jesus  later  on  bestowed  upon  him 
(Matt.  II :  11)  would  make  us  ready  to  believe  that 
his  conception  of  the  Messiah  was  vastly  above  that  of 
any  other  Jewish  teacher.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  excla- 
mation of  John  produced  little  effect;  probably  because 
the  hearers  failed  to  grasp  its  full  meaning,  while  Jesus 
withdrew  from  sight  before  they  fairl}'^  saw  whom 
John  was  pointing  out.  Such  public  announcement 
with  its  consequent  excitement  was  not  the  way  in 
which  to  begin  His  ministry. 

The  next  day  (Saturday)  was  the  Jewish  Sabbath, 
when  the  people  would  remain  at  their  homes,  and 
John  would  have  the  companionship  of  none  but  his 
intimate  disciples.  Jesus,  too,  would  not  pursue  His 
journey,  but  would  remain  there  at  Bethany.  And 
thus  it  happened  that  John,  as  he  was  in  the  company  of 
two  Galilean  fishermen, — Andrew  and  the  John  who 
tells  the  story, — again  caught  sight  of  Jesus,  who  was 


THE  FINAL  PREPARATION  103 

walking  by  the  place  where  they  were  standing.  He 
gazed  earnestly  at  Him  (so  far  as  we  know  it  was  the 
last  time  he  ever  saw  Jesus)  as  if  to  make  sure  that 
he  was  right  in  the  identification  of  yesterday,  and  then 
cried  out  again,  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God!"  The 
two  disciples,  hearing  John  thus  speak,  pressed  after 
Jesus  with  reverent  curiosity ;  and  the  Baptist  was  left 
alone.  He  had  fulfilled  his  mission;  henceforth  he 
must  decrease  as  the  one  to  whom  he  had  borne  witness 
increased. 

2.   The  Call  of  the  First  Disciples. 

When  the  two  disciples  at  Jesus'  invitation  came  to 
His  abode,  it  was  "  about  the  tenth  hour."  According 
to  Jewish  reckoning  the  first  hour  began  at  sunrise; 
and  the  tenth  hour  would  be  about  four  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon.  The  day  then  would  be  nearly  over;  and 
the  statement,  "  they  abode  with  him  that  day,"  would 
mean  simply  a  two  hours'  visit.  If,  however,  we  accept 
the  opinion  of  many  scholars  that  John  reckoned  time 
after  our  own  manner  (thus  meaning  by  the  tenth  hour 
ten  o'clock  in  the  morning),  it  helps  us  here  and  also  in 
other  passages  of  his  Gospel  (4:6;  5:52;  19:14). 
Before  the  two  disciples  settled  down  for  their  first 
precious  day  with  Jesus,  Andrew, — doubtless  with 
Jesus'  permission, — went  in  search  of  his  brother, 
Simon,  and  with  a  glad  "  Eureka ! "  brought  him 
to  Jesus.  At  the  same  time  John  probably  went  in 
search  of  his  brother,  James,  and  a  little  later  brought 
him  also.  (This  is  the  inference  from  "  He  first 
findeth  "  (i  141)  where  the  Greek  means  first  of  the 
two  seekers;  though  some  of  the  best  manuscripts 
read,  "  He  findeth  first,"  i.e.,  before  he  did  anything 
else. ) 


104  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

The  following  day  (Sunday)  Jesus  prepared  to 
resume  His  journey,  and  the  four  disciples  were  ready 
to  follow  Him.  But  there  was  another  to  be  added  to 
their  company,  Philip,  a  fellow  townsman  of  Andrew 
and  Peter,  about  whom  they  had  told  Him.  Jesus 
Himself  went  in  search  of  him  and  found  him.  And 
Philip  in  turn  must  find  and  bring  Nathanael, — probably 
Bartholomew,  i.e.,  the  son  of  Tolmai  (cf.  Simon  Bar- 
jonah,  Matt.  i6:  17)  who  had  come  from  Cana  (John 
21:2)  to  the  preaching  of  John.  Thus  in  this  simple 
and  natural  way  six  disciples  were  gained,  all  of  whom 
later  on  were  to  become  apostles. 

Jesus'  knowledge  of  what  is  in  man  (John  2:25) 
was  shown  by  His  giving  Simon  the  new  name,  Peter, 
and  still  more  by  His  conversation  with  Nathanael. 
In  repeated  instances  later  on  this  same  knowledge 
was  displayed ;  though  whether  it  was  supernatural  or 
only  the  result  in  the  highest  degree  of  that  power 
to  read  men  which  all  leaders  must  possess  we  cannot 
say.  Certainly  it  was  part  of  His  equipment  for  the 
Messianic  work;  to  reveal  God  to  man,  He  must  thor- 
oughly know  man  as  well  as  God.  What  the  experi- 
ence of  Nathanael  was  when  underneath  the  figtree 
before  Philip  called  him,  remains  untold :  but  it  was 
something  so  intimate  and  sacred  that  the  mere  dis- 
covery that  Jesus  knew  it  turned  Nathanael's  doubt 
into  belief,  and  called  forth  his  declaration,  "  Rabbi, 
thou  art  the  Son  of  God;  thou  art  King  of  Israel." 

How  much  meaning  shall  we  put  into  these  early 
^  confessions  of  faith  in  Jesus?  And  can  we  reconcile 
this  enthusiastic  welcome  of  the  Messiah  with  the  fact 
that,  according  to  the  Synoptics,  these  same  disciples 
were  very  slow  to  recognize  Jesus  as  the  Messiah ;  and 
Peter's  confession  of  faith,  after  months  of  patient 


THE  FINAL  PREPARATION  105 

teaching  by  Jesus,  was  treated  as  a  marked  advance  in 
spiritual  discernment  (Matt.  i6:  i6  f.)  ?  In  search  of 
an  answer  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  even  John  the 
Baptist  had  very  imperfect  ideas  about  the  Messiah; 
and  these  men  had  only  partially  grasped  the  ideas  of 
John.  They  were  following  Jesus,  not  from  any 
spiritual  recognition  of  Him  and  intelligent  sympathy 
with  His  mission,  but  because  their  teacher  had  pointed 
Him  out  and  endorsed  Him.  They  had,  therefore,  a 
great  deal  to  learn  before  they  could  realize  the  true 
nature  of  Him  whom  they  followed,  and  receive  the 
benediction,  bestowed  first  upon  Peter,  for  such  a  reali- 
zation. They  might  now  hail  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and 
yet  later  on,  when  He  failed  to  fulfill  their  present  Mes- 
sianic expectations,  fall  into  doubt,  as  did  the  Baptist 
himself.  It  is  also  possible,  as  Garvie  suggests,  that 
Jesus  at  first  did  not  realize  the  obstinacy  and  unbelief 
and  the  degree  of  unpreparedness  confronting  Him, 
and  so  began  by  revealing  His  Messiahship  more  fully 
than  later  on.  While  there  is  no  complete  revelation, 
yet  His  conversation  with  these  first  disciples  and  His 
labors  in  Judea  are  with  less  reserve  and  more  con- 
fidence than  in  Galilee.  Nevertheless,  His  words 
to  Nathanael  (John  1:51)  must  have  been  almost 
enigmatic.  Their  explanation  lies  along  the  line  of 
Jacob's  dream  at  Bethel : — Jesus  is  the  ladder  between 
earth  and  heaven,  upon  which  God's  messages  pass; 
Nathanael  shall  have  surer  grounds  for  faith  than 
Jesus'  knowledge  of  his  secret  thoughts;  he  shall  see  in 
Him  a  revelation  of  God,  a  knowledge  of  things  divine, 
that  is  possible  only  for  the  Son  of  man. 

Monday  and  Tuesday  are  unrecorded  days ;  we  know 
simply  that  on  one  or  both  of  them,  Jesus  and  His 
disciples  made  the  journey  to  Nazareth.     Why  He 


106  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

should  go  into  Galilee,  taking  the  six,  when  so  soon 
He  was  to  return  to  the  Passover  feast,  we  can  only 
guess.  Personal  and  domestic  reasons  may  have  influ- 
enced both  Him  and  these  Galilean  disciples;  or  He 
may  have  wished  to  get  them  away  from  the  excite- 
ment of  John's  work,  that  their  new-born  faith  in  Him 
might  be  educated  and  strengthened.  He  arrived  home 
soon  enough  to  have  the  news  reach  Cana,  a  few  miles 
away,  and  an  invitation  come  to  Him  and  His  dis- 
ciples to  attend  the  wedding  in  Nathanael's  town  on 
Wednesday.  Mary's  activity  in  the  marriage  feast  sug- 
gests that  she  was  a  relative  or  at  least  an  intimate 
friend;  but  that  the  marriage  was  of  Nathanael  or  in 
his  home  is  improbable.  We  note  that  Jesus  came 
back  to  Cana  again  after  His  Judean  ministry  (John 
4:6)  ;  this  increases  the  probability  that  His  relatives 
or  close  friends  lived  there. 

3.    The  Miracle  at  Cana. 

V  Of  all  Christ's  miracles  this  is  "  in  some  respects  the 
most  perplexing"  (Bruce).  But  the  very  things  that 
puzzle  us,  e.g.,  the  mutual  conduct  of  Mary  and  Jesus, 
are  proofs  of  its  historicity;  a  fabricator  would  have 
left  them  out.  The  story  is  that  of  an  eye-witness  who 
remembers  clearly  the  whole  scene.  It  suits  John  in  his 
old  age  recalling  the  first  miracle  of  his  Master;  but 
some  of  the  details  must  have  been  given  him  by 
Mary  who,  tradition  says  (cf.  John  19:27),  lived 
with  him  after  the  crucifixion. 

The  miracle  is  a  "  nature  miracle,"  and  so  cannot  be 
explained  as  the  influence  of  Jesus'  personality,  though 
Beyschlag  and  Lange  do  suggest  hypnotism, —  (Lange 
has  much  to  say  about  "magnetized  water").  The 
easiest  way  for  the  sceptic  to  dispose  of  it  would  be  to 


THE  FINAL  PREPARATION  107 

pronounce  the  story  a  myth,  Strauss  does  this,  basing 
it  upon  Moses'  turning  water  into  blood,  and  Elisha's 
changing  bitter  water  into  sweet.  But  if  John  was  an 
eye-witness,  and  the  gospel  report  is  his,  a  myth  is  here 
impossible.  Other  explanations  are  that  John  himself 
was  "  well  drunken,"  and  did  not  know  what  really 
did  happen  (quoted  by  Strauss)  ;  that  Mary  brought 
the  wine,  and  gave  the  signal  to  her  son  to  produce  it 
(Gforer)  ;  that  Jesus  jokingly  said,  "  Here  is  some 
wine  I  have  made  out  of  water  "  (Paulus)  ;  that  it  is  a 
parable  changed  into  a  supposed  real  occurrence 
(Weisse)  ;  that  it  is  an  allegory, — water  represents 
John  the  Baptist;  wine,  Jesus;  the  transformation  is 
the  passing  from  one  dispensation  to  the  other  (Baur 
and  in  substance  Keim)  ;  that  there  was  a  spiritual 
exaltation  in  which  water  became,  in  the  best  sense  of 
the  word,  wine  (Ewald)  ;  that  it  was  a  miracle  of 
Providence, — the  wine  was  brought  opportunely  by" 
some  one  (Weiss).  The  whole  subject  of  miracles 
must  be  considered  later  on;  so  we  need  not  pause 
to  discuss  these  sceptical  explanations. 

That  it  was  wine  which  Jesus  created  does  not  pre- 
sent a  difficulty.  Wine, — and  wine  that  might  intoxi- 
cate,— was  the  ordinary  beverage,  the  tea  and  coffee, 
of  Palestine.  The  amount  was  large, — about  five  hun- 
dred quarts ;  but  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  in  the 
wedding  festivities,  which  might  last  a  week,  it  would 
not  all  be  used. 

The  strongest  objection  to  the  miracle  is  that,  at 
first  sight,  it  seems  a  needless  one,  i.e.,  it  ministers  to 
no  real  want,  and  is,  therefore,  purely  a  show  miracle, 
like  descending  from  the  temple  pinnacle.  If  this  is 
so,  we  may  well  doubt  the  story;  for  certainly  a  use- 
less miracle  is  incredible.    What  reasons,  then,  may  be 


f 


108  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

found  for  changing  the  water  into  wine?  Possibly  the 
bringing  of  these  six  disciples  on  briefest  notice  was 
what  caused  the  wine  to  run  short ;  in  which  case  it  was 
a  courteous  act  on  the  part  of  Jesus  to  supply  an  em- 
barrassing lack  for  which  He  was  responsible.  (Note 
that  as  there  were  six  disciples  so  there  were  six 
water-jars.)  But  a  more  important  reason  was  that 
the  new  disciples  needed  such  "  a  sign."  John  the 
Baptist  worked  no  miracle  (John  lo:  41)  :  this  act  of 
Jesus  would  teach  them  that  their  new  teacher  was 
greater  than  John.  John  was  an  ascetic,  never  drink- 
ing wine  nor  attending  feasts;  this  miracle  at  a  wed- 
ding would  show  them  that  Jesus  was  not  in  spirit  the 
same,  and  that  their  ideas  gained  from  John  must  be 
broadened  into  a  fuller  conception  of  what  the  kingdom 
of  God  was  like.  The  miracle  manifested  Jesus'  glory; 
but  it  was  not  a  show  miracle ;  it  was  a  gracious  con- 
descension to  the  needs  of  the  wedding  guests  and  of 
the  disciples. 

The  attitude  of  Mary  towards  her  son  is  at  first 
sight  perplexing.  To  understand  it  we  must  remember 
that  Mary  had  kept  in  the  silence  of  her  heart  the 
wonderful  things  about  her  child,  and  knew  Him  to  be 
the  promised  Messiah,  but  had  only  imperfect  ideas 
of  what  the  Messiah  was  to  be.  His  return  from  the 
baptism  with  a  band  of  disciples  would  arouse  her  ex- 
pectation that  now  He  was  about  to  proclaim  his  Mes- 
siahship.  She  may,  also,  have  learned  from  the 
disciples  (James  and  John  were  possibly  her  nephews) 
what  had  happened  when  He  and  they  were  with  John 
the  Baptist.  Hence  her  belief  that  He  could  perform 
the  miracle,  which  led  to  the  desire  that  He  would 
perform  it  to  make  the  guests  believe  on  Him.  She 
suggested  an  act  fitly  introducing  a  sensuous  Messianic 


THE  FINAL  PREPARATION  109 

kingdom;  unconsciously  she  set  before  Him  the  bread 
temptation  of  the  wilderness.  Christ's  answer  was  not 
so  much  to  her  words  as  to  her  unspoken  thought.  It 
is  not  discourteous  (cf.  John  19:26  for  "woman"), 
nor  is  it  as  stern  as  the  rebuke  to  Peter  when  he  pre- 
sented a  temptation  (Mark  8:33);  but  it  is  a  firm 
statement  that  her  wishes  must  not  regulate  His  Mes- 
sianic course.  The  time  has  not  yet  come  for  Him  to 
announce  Himself  publicly;  and  He  never  can  be  the 
kind  of  Messiah  she  expects.  Mary  accepts  His  posi- 
tion though  not  understanding  its  necessity;  but  she 
persists  in  her  desire  that  He  should  supply  the  wine; 
and  her  faith,  shown  by  her  command  to  the  servants, 
prevails.  The  miracle  may  be  wrought  for  her  and  the 
disciples;  though  the  guests  must  not  know  of  it.  It  is 
performed  in  the  most  quiet  way.  Only  Jesus,  Mary 
and  the  disciples  with  the  servants  witness  it;  for  the 
water-pots  are  outside  the  banqueting  room,  and  evi- 
dently Jesus  and  His  disciples,  who  would  not  be  hon- 
ored guests,  are  also  outside, — Mary  is  superintending 
the  servants.  What  measure  of  faith  was  kindled  in 
the  servants  by  the  miracle,  we  do  not  know;  but  for 
the  disciples  it  was  a  manifestation  of  divine  power 
which  strengthened  their  confidence  that  they  had  in- 
deed found  the  Messiah.  And,  when,  after  a  brief 
sojourn  at  Capernaum,  they  went  with  Him  up  to 
Jerusalem  for  the  Passover,  they  must  have  expected 
He  was  about  to  begin  His  reign  over  Israel;  though 
they  could  not  have  grasped  the  character  of  that 
reign. 


IX 

THE  JUDEAN  MINISTRY 

I.    The  General  Character. 

JUDEA  was  a  small  region;  in  length  from  Bethel 
to  Beersheba  fifty-five  miles,  and  in  width  from  the 
Shephelah  (the  low  hills  on  the  west)  to  the  Jordan 
valley  about  twenty-five  or  thirty;  and  nearly  half  of 
this  area  was  wilderness.  The  hill  plateau  was  per- 
haps thirty-five  miles  long  and  twelve  to  seventeen 
broad.  In  the  first  century,  as  now,  because  there 
vv^as  little  opportunity  for  agriculture  or  commerce, 
the  population  was  comparatively  small,  and  the  peo- 
ple gained  their  living  largely  from  the  multitude  of 
pilgrims  coming  to  Jerusalem.  These  must  be  fed, 
lodged  and  cared  for :  and  cattle,  sheep,  doves  and 
various  other  sacrifices  must  be  provided  for  their 
temple  offerings.  In  fact,  the  Judeans  lived  by  the 
temple  services ;  and  being  thus  isolated  from  all  except 
the  pilgrim  world,  and  centering  their  thoughts  on  the 
temple  and  the  law,  they  could  hardly  help  becoming 
narrow-minded,  conceited  and  bigoted. 

If  Jesus  was  to  present  Himself  to  the  nation  as  its 
Messiah,  the  proper  place  in  which  to  do  this  was  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem.  The  general  expectation,  based 
on  Mai.  3:1,  was  that  the  Messiah  would  first  appear 
here.  And  in  the  thought  of  Jesus  Himself  no  place 
could  be  more  fitting  than  His  Father's  house  for 
beginning  the  work  to  which  His  Father  had  called 

no 


THE  JUDEAN  MINISTRY  111 

Him.  Also,  if  He  was  to  challenge  the  nation  to  pass 
upon  His  claims,  the  proper  body  to  address  was  the 
Sanhedrin.  It  ruled  and  represented  the  people;  and 
one  of  its  special  duties  was  to  denounce  a  false  Mes- 
siah, or  to  proclaim  the  true  one  when  he  should 
appear.  The  endorsement  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  the 
quickest  way  of  securing  universal  acceptance.  If  the 
rulers  said,  "  Here  is  our  long  expected  Messiah,"  not 
only  the  people  of  Judea  but  all  the  Jews  everywhere 
would  give  him  enthusiastic  welcome.  The  purpose 
of  the  Judean  ministry,  therefore,  was  to  win  the  lead-  ^ 
ers  in  Jerusalem, — the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees, — 
especially  those  who  constituted  the  Sanhedrin.  When 
they  were  won,  the  task  of  winning  the  nation  was 
practically  accomplished. 

2.   The  Appeal  to  the  Sadducees. 

We  think  of  the  temple  as  the  sacred  center  of  wor- 
ship, and  only  with  difficulty  realize  that  it  was  also 
and  necessarily  the  greatest  business  institution  of  the 
Jews.  It  handled  vast  sums  of  money  coming  from  the 
temple  tax,  which  all  Jews  everywhere  were  expected 
to  pay,  and  from  various  money  offerings  prescribed 
or  voluntary.  The  treasure  which  Crassus  carried  off 
when  he  plundered  it,  54-3  B.C.,  is  said  to  have 
amounted  to  ten  thousand  talents,  which  would  be 
more  than  ten  million  dollars ;  and  other  spoilers  found 
it  equally  rich.  It  was  likewise  the  center  of  an  enor- 
mous traffic  in  animals  for  sacrifice  and  in  articles 
needed  by  the  worshippers  for  their  vows  and  offer- 
ings. At  the  time  of  the  great  feasts,  when  myriads 
of  pilgrims  thronged  Jerusalem,  the  sales  must  have 
been  beyond  calculation. 

Even  the  strongest  endeavor  would  hardly  prevent 


112  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

the  business  part  of  the  temple  life  from  overshadow- 
ing the  religious  part;  but  the  ruling  priests  of  that 
day,  the  house  of  Annas  and  their  associates,  had  no 
disposition  to  put  forth  such  endeavor.  They  were 
notorious  for  greed,  and  cared  little  for  the  worship  in 
which  they  were  the  chief  officials,  except  as  a  means 
of  heaping  up  private  fortunes.  It  was  easy  for  them 
to  monopolize  the  temple  traffic.  Every  animal  for 
sacrifice  must  undergo  priestly  inspection  to  see  that 
it  was  without  blemish ;  this  put  within  their  power  to 
reject  all  animals  not  bought  from  their  own  agents. 
Likewise,  the  money  paid  into  the  temple  must  be  of  a 
special  coinage;  and  all  the  sacred  coins  would  soon 
be  in  their  possession,  when  they  could  charge  a  high 
rate  of  exchange  for  them.  They  were  not  slow  to 
take  advantage  of  such  tempting  opportunities.  In- 
deed, under  pretence  of  making  purchases  convenient 
for  strangers,  they  had  even  placed  cattle  booths  and 
exchangers'  tables  in  the  court  of  the  Gentiles,  thereby 
turning  into  an  emporium  (John  2:  i6)  the  only  part 
of  the  temple  into  which  devout  heathen  could  enter 
for  worship,  and  which,  for  that  very  reason,  seems  to 
have  been  specially  valued  by  Jesus.  It  was  with  good 
cause  that  He  said,  "  Is  it  not  written,  My  house  shall 
be  called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  nations?  but  ye 
have  made  it  a  den  of  robbers  "  (Mark  11:17).  All 
the  devout,  had  they  dared,  would  have  said  the  same. 
I  The  cleansing  of  the  temple  is  told  both  by  Mark, 
i  whom  the  other  Synoptists  follow,  and  by  John;  but 
\  the  former  places  it  at  the  close  of  Jesus'  ministry,  and 
the  latter  at  the  beginning.  Were  there  two  cleansings 
or  only  one;  and  if  only  one,  when  was  it?  For  rea- 
sons better  stated  later  on,  we  may  conclude  that  the 
only  cleansing  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  ministry,  and 


THE  JUDEAN  MINISTRY  US 

that  the  Synoptists  really  describe  this  opening  incident, 
though  they  put  it  so  much  later. 

After  the  marriage  at  Cana,  Jesus  spent  a  short 
interval  at  Capernaum,  where  some  of  His  disciples 
and  possibly  of  His  own  family  resided,  and  then,  as 
the  Passover  drew  nigh,  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  Here 
the  preparations  for  the  feast  gave  Him  an  opportunity 
to  challenge  the  Sadducees,  and  compel  them  either  to 
recognize  His  authority  by  reforming  the  abuses  in  the. 
temple,  or  else  to  refuse  to  accept  Him  as  the  one  whom 
Malachi  had  foretold.  Coming  into  the  court  of  the 
Gentiles  where  the  vendors  and  the  money  changers 
were  already  active.  He  drove  them  out  by  stern  com- 
mand and  vigorous  action ;  and  He  also  stopped  another 
desecration, — the  use  of  this  court  by  the  citizens  of 
Jerusalem  as  a  convenient  shortcut  (Mark  ii:i6). 
There  is  no  need  to  suppose  that  He  used  supernatural 
power  in  accomplishing  this;  the  evident  approval  of 
His  act  by  the  worshippers,  and  the  guilty  consciences 
of  the  traders,  who  were  taken  completely  off  their 
guard,  would  be  enough  to  ensure  His  success.  Nor 
can  He  be  condemned  for  unrighteous  anger  and  un- 
necessary violence.  His  disciples,  as  they  watched  the 
scene,  recalled  the  Messianic  prophecy,  "  Zeal  for  Thy 
house  shall  eat  me  up  "  (Ps.  69  :  9)  ;  and  such  consum- 
ing indignation  was  proper  in  the  presence  of  this  ir- 
reverence and  greed.  Gentle  reproof  would  have 
produced  little  effect  upon  the  traders;  though  the 
scourge  of  cords  was  for  the  cattle  and  not  for  the 
men  who  sold  them. 

If  Jesus  had  been  simply  a  reformer,  there  was  suffi- 
cient  reason  for  His  act.    But  the  same  abuse  had  met      1 
His  gaze  at  each  previous  visit  to  the  temple,  and  had 
called  forth  no  correction  because  Jesus  was  never 


114  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

merel)'  a  reformer.  He  had  come  this  day  as  the  Mes- 
siah to  the  temple, — as  the  Son  to  "  My  Father's 
house  "  (there  was  a  deeper  meaning  in  this  phrase 
now  than  when  He  used  it  as  a  boy  of  twelve)  ;  and 
He  acted  with  divine  authority.  The  attention  of  the 
Jews  (by  "Jews"  John  always  means  the  leaders — 
in  this  case  specially  the  Sadducees)  was  at  once  ex- 
citedly centered  upon  Him.  And  that  they  recognized 
His  claims  to  be  more  than  those  of  a  self-appointed 
reformer,  is  shown  by  their  demand  for  a  sign,  i.e.,  a 
miracle  (John  2 :  18)  : — no  sign  would  be  necessary  in 
justification  of  an  evidently  needed  reform.  Here  at 
the  very  outset  their  demand  put  before  Him  the  "  tem- 
ple temptation  "  of  the  wilderness. 

His  answer  (2:  19)  was  purposely  ambiguous;  per- 
haps, also,  part  of  it  has  been  omitted.  From  Mark 
14:58,  which  is  the  report  of  false  witnesses  but 
whose  falsity  seems  to  have  been  in  the  statement  *'  I 
will  destroy,"  we  might  conclude  that  His  words  were, 
"  Destroy  this  temple  that  is  made  with  hands ;  and  in 
three  days  I  will  build  another  not  made  with  hands." 
If  so,  it  was  a  more  significant  statement  than  that,  if 
He  were  put  to  death.  He  would  rise  again  after  three 
days, — and  a  statement  better  suiting  the  situation. 
The  temple  made  with  hands  which  the  Sadducees 
were  destroying  by  turning  it  into  a  den  of  robbers  was 
to  be  supplanted  by  the  spiritual  temple  which  in  a 
very  little  while  ("  three  days  ")  Jesus  would  raise  up. 
The  thought  was  the  same  as  that  expressed  to  the 
Samaritan  woman  when  He  said  the  hour  was  at  hand 
"  when  the  true  worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father 
in  spirit  and  truth"  (John  4:21-24).  Nevertheless, 
the  significance  which  the  apostle  John  found  in  the 
words  as  he  pondered  them  in  later  years  may  also 


THE  JUDEAN  MINISTRY  115 

have  been  there.  These  men  who  turned  God's  house 
into  a  source  of  gain  would  not  hesitate  even  to  mur- 
der the  Messiah  if  he  interfered  with  their  gains;  and 
the  resurrection  from  the  dead  would  be  the  crowning 
manifestation  of  His  divinity,  through  which  the  new 
and  spiritual  religion  would  be  established  (Rom. 
1:4).  For  the  present,  however,  the  cleansing  of  the 
temple  seemed  to  have  been  a  fruitless  task.  On  the  J 
morrow  the  priests  regained  their  authority,  the  traders 
were  back  in  their  places,  and  the  denunciations  of  the 
young  man  from  Nazareth  were  almost  forgotten. 

3.   The  Appeal  to  the  Pharisees. 

From  the  Sadducees  Jesus  next  turned  to  the  Phari- 
sees. Doubtless  they  had  approved  of  the  cleansing  of 
the  temple,  though  they  would  not  like  the  credit  of  it 
to  be  gained  by  an  unknown  Galilean :  but  the  act  was 
not  specially  calculated  to  call  their  attention  to  His 
Messianic  claims.  The  case  was  different  when  in  the 
Passover  week  many  of  the  people  "  believed  on  His 
name,"  i.e.,  thought  Him  to  be  the  Messiah,  "  behold- 
ing his  signs  which  he  did."  These  believers  must 
have  been  mainly  pilgrims  who  had  come  to  the  feast 
(cf.  4:  45)  :  for  the  men  of  Jerusalem  would  wait  the 
opinion  of  the  rulers.  What  the  signs  were  we  are 
not  told;  probably  they  were  miracles  of  healing;  cer- 
tainly their  purpose  was  not  to  create  belief,  for  He 
refused  to  accept  the  belief  created  by  them.  With 
His  knowledge  of  the  human  heart.  He  perceived 
the  shallowness  of  a  faith  that  has  no  deeper  founda- 
tion than  wonderment.  Whatever  called  forth  these 
miracles,  their  most  important  effect  was  to  compel 
the  Pharisees  to  consider  Jesus;  for  as  soon  as  men 
began  to  discuss  whether  He  was  the  Messiah,  they 


■f- 


116  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

felt  that  this  was  a  question  which  must  be  answered 
by  themselves. 

Nicodemus,  who  was  a  Pharisee  (John  7 :  50)  and  a 
member  of  the  Sanhedrin,  reveals  the  attitude  towards 
Jesus  of  the  best  and  most  thoughtful  of  the  Pharisees. 
He  was  by  nature  conservative  but  not  hide-bound,— 
cautious  but  not  cowardly;  he  came  to  Jesus  by  night 
not  because  he  feared  Jewish  hatred  (there  was  no  rea- 
son for  fear  until  later  on,  19  :  38,  cf.  9  :  22;  12  :  42), 
but  because  night  was  the  best  time  for  a  quiet,  pro- 
longed conversation.  That  a  rabbi  of  Jerusalem, — the 
proudest  being  in  the  world, — sought  an  interview  with 
a  young  Galilean  layman  shows  the  profound  impres- 
sion Jesus  had  made  upon  Nicodemus  and  his  asso- 
ciates. Yet  notice  from  the  way  in  which  he  addressed 
Jesus  (3:2)  how  little  he  had  advanced  towards  a 
recognition  of  Him  as  the  Messiah.  He  saw  in  him 
"  a  teacher  "  (not  "  the  teacher  "  as  Jesus  with  some 
sarcasm  called  him,  3:10),  "come  from  God,"  i.e., 
not  trained  in  the  schools,  but  still  deserving  to  be  called 
rabbi,  as  truly  possessing  divine  wisdom  and  having 
evident  proofs  of  divine  favor.  There  was  a  little 
unconscious  patronage  in  his  "  we  know  "  such  as  justi- 
fied Jesus'  sarcasm. 

The  conversation  with  Nicodemus  must  have  been 
long  and  serious;  but  of  it  there  is  preserved  only  a 
few  striking  sentences  which  are  evidently  given  ver- 
batim, since  here  and  only  here  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  we 
find  the  term,  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  record  is 
joined  without  a  break  to  the  comments  of  the  evan- 
gelist, so  that  we  do  not  know  where  the  words  of 
Jesus  end;  though  3 :  12  seems  the  natural  termination, 
since  that  which  follows  would  have  been  incompre- 
hensible not  only  to  Nicodemus  but  also  to  the  disciples 


THE  JUDEAN  MINISTRY  117 

who  bore  witness  with  Jesus  (3:11).  Nicodemus 
came  to  discuss  the  Messiahship,  and  at  once  found 
himself  confronted  with  the  question  of  the  nature  of 
the  kingdom  over  which  the  Messiah  should  reign. 
Evidently  that  was  the  first  question  to  be  settled ;  for 
the  qualifications  of  a  king  depend  upon  the  nature  of 
his  kingdom.  But  Nicodemus  had  taken  for  granted 
that  the  Pharisaic  idea  of  the  kingdom  was  correct, 
and  was  Hot  able  to  grasp  any  other.  A  spiritual 
kingdom  visible  and  open  only  to  those  who  were  born  r 
from  above,  a  kingdom  to  be  entered  by  penitence 
and  the  quickening  of  the  Spirit,  was  a  mystery  to  him. 
In  bewilderment  he  could  only  ask,  "  How  can  these 
things  be  ?  ",  and  cease  to  question  further.  The  fail- 
ure of  Nicodemus  to  grasp  even  the  simpler  teachings 
concerning  the  kingdom  is  merely  one  instance  of  the 
inability  of  the  Pharisees  to  see  in  Jesus  the  Messiah; 
for  it  was  of  them  collectively  that  He  said,  "  If  I 
told  you  earthly  things  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall 
ye  believe  if  I  tell  you  heavenly  things?  " 

4.    The  Work  in  Judea. 

The  work  in  Jerusalem  had  failed.  The  Sadducees 
were  of  the  opinion  that  Jesus  was  a  fanatic,  perhaps 
a  dangerous  one;  the  Pharisees  pronounced  Him  an 
enigma,  but  were  sure  that  if  His  teachings  contra- 
dicted theirs.  He  was  to  be  condemned.  There  was  no 
chance  of  His  acceptance  by  the  Sanhedrin;  in  fact.  He 
was  considered  of  too  little  importance  for  its  atten- 
tion. The  failure  is  not  surprising,  for  the  obstacles 
were  great.  Not  only  was  He  a  Galilean  and  there- 
fore despised  by  the  Judeans;  but  He  had  been  bap- 
tized by  John,  and  taken  His  disciples  from  those  of 
John  and  his  followers.     And  above  all  else  pride 


118  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

and  selfishness  and  lack  of  spiritual  perception  barred 
the  reception  of  a  spiritual  kingdom  and  its  appointed 
king. 

Evidently  the  work  of  preparation  which  John  had 
been  doing  was  not  complete.  Jesus,  therefore,  when 
He  left  the  city  at  the  end  of  the  Passover  week, — 
departing  because  it  was  useless  or  unsafe  to  remain 
longer, — set  His  disciples  to  work  in  Judea  along  the 
Baptist's  lines,  with  which  they  were  familiar.  In  this 
way  the  work  of  the  Baptist  would  be  enlarged;  and 
possibly  the  disciples  themselves  might  become  more 
fully  prepared  for  their  own  future  mission.  Because 
it  was  preparatory  work  Jesus  could  not  personally 
engage  in  it;  He  must  act  as  the  Messiah,  and  not  as 
the  forerunner.  What  He  did  while  His  disciples 
were  baptizing  we  are  not  told.  The  work  was  highly 
popular, — the  people  who  had  flocked  to  John  came 
streaming  forth  again  to  these  new  preachers;  but  it 
was  not  a  work  upon  which  Jesus  laid  great  emphasis 
or  which  continued  long.  When  "a  Jew"  (3:25), 
probably  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin  and  a  Pharisee 
(4:  i),  tried  to  hinder  John  by  making  his  disciples 
jealous  of  their  seeming  rivals,  Jesus  stopped  it.  The 
closing  statement,  "He  left  Judea"  (4:3),  is  more 
\  precisely,  "  He  abandoned  Judea,"  i.e.,  gave  up  utterly 
His  present  attempt  to  win  recognition  there.  We  shall 
see  that  He  made  one  more  effort ;  for  the  visit  to  the 
unnamed  feast  (5:  i),  though  much  later  in  time,  is 
really  the  closing  act  of  this  Judean  ministry. 

5.    The  Work  in  Samaria. 

When  Jesus  started  to  return  to  Galilee,  "  he  must 
needs  pass  through  Samaria"  (4:4).  This  explana- 
tion is  for  readers  who  are  not   familiar  with  the 


THE  JUDEAN  MINISTRY  119 

topography.  True,  very  scrupulous  Jews  went  around 
by  Peraea;  but  this  was  not  the  shortest  or  the  usual 
route  for  Galileans  going  to  the  feast  (Jos.  Ant.  20: 
6:1).  A  day's  journey  would  bring  Him  to  Jacob's 
well,  near  the  little  town  of  Sychar.  He  reached  the 
well  "  about  the  sixth  hour  "  (John  4:6),  which  may 
have  been  high  noon,  but  more  probably  was  six  in  the 
evening, — the  regular  hour  of  coming  for  water.  If 
the  season  was  midsummer,  there  was  plenty  of  time 
for  what  followed. 

The  conversation  with  the  woman  at  the  well, — 
learned  probably  by  John  from  the  woman  herself,  who 
was  so  deeply  impressed  by  it, — shows  Jesus'  marvel- 
lous skill  in  dealing  with  individuals.  It  ended  with  a 
plain  declaration  of  His  Messiahship.  There  were  rea- 
sons why  He  could  make  this  declaration  in  Samaria 
when  He  could  not  in  Judea.  The  Samaritans  ac- 
cepted the  Pentateuch,  but  rejected  the  other  books 
"of  the  Old  Testament.  This  deprived  them  of  the 
rich,  spiritual  teachings  of  the  prophets  and  psalms, 
but  also  hindered  visions  of  future  national  greatness 
and  of  the  marvellous  transformation  which  should 
take  place  in  Messianic  days.  They  borrowed  from 
their  Jewish  neighbors  the  hope  of  a  Messiah :  but  their 
expectation  was  that  he  would  be  chiefly  a  teacher, — 
the  one  described  in  Deut.  18:15  where  Moses  is 
represented  as  foretelling,  "  Jehovah  thy  God  will  raise 
up  unto  thee  a  prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy 
brethren,  like  unto  me;  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken" 
(cf.  John  4:19,  25,  29;  Acts  3:22f.).  To  those 
who  held  this  expectation  Jesus  could  say  plainly,  "  I 
that  speak  unto  thee  am  he,"  without  the  danger  of 
having  His  mission  misunderstood;  and  the  accent  of 
authority  in  His  teaching  would  lead  them  to  accept 


120  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Him  as  indeed  "  the  Saviour  of  the  world,'* — though 
the  term  in  their  lips  would  not  have  the  rich  signifi- 
cance it  was  to  possess  later  on. 

The  receptivity  of  the  woman  cheered  the  heart  of 
Jesus  (John  4:  32)  ;  and  He  used  it  to  cheer  the  hearts 
of  His  disciples  who,  we  may  suppose,  were  naturally 
discouraged  by  the  f  ruitlessness  of  their  work  in  Judea, 
and  had  been  keeping  up  their  spirits  by  quoting  the 
saying, — perhaps  a  popular  proverb, — "  One  must  wait 
four  months  after  sowing  before  the  harvest  comes." 
He  pointed  out  to  them  that  already  they  might  begin 
to  reap  (possibly  ripe  grainfields  in  sight  shaped  His 
figure  of  speech),  and  to  reap  where  they  had  not 
previously  labored  in  preparation. 

Those  two  days  in  Sychar  were  full  of  the  joy  of 
teaching  men  eager  to  receive  instruction, — one  of  the 
"  few  glad  surprises  "  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  But  to 
carry  on  this  work  among  the  Samaritans  would  end 
all  possibility  of  work  among  the  Jews,  who  would  be 
hostile  to  any  one  associating  with  their  despised  and 
hated  neighbors.  Possibly  it  was  some  report  of  these 
days  at  Sychar  which  gave  rise  later  on  to  the  slander 
of  His  enemies  that  He  was  a  Samaritan  (John  8 :48). 
His  mission  was  to  the  Jews,  and  Samaria  must  wait 
until  it  was  accomplished ;  but  this  brief  stay  among  a 
receptive  people  was  inspiring  to  both  Master  and  dis- 
ciples, and  in  some  degree  was  a  preparation  for  the 
great,  popular  work  in  Galilee.  Concerning  the  per- 
-\-  manent  fruit  of  His  teachings  at  Sychar  we  know  noth- 
ing; but  possibly  the  ready  reception  of  Christianity  in 
Samaria  when  Philip  the  evangelist  preached  there 
(Acts  8:5),  may  have  been  because  Jesus  prepared  the 
way. 


THE  JUDEAN  MINISTRY  121 

6.    The  Second  Miracle  at  Cana. 

That  this  is  the  same  as  the  healing  of  the  centurion's 
servant  (Matt.  8:  5-13),  is  not  probable.  The  resem- 
blances are  few;  the  differences  many.  John  treats  it 
as  the  epilogue  to  the  Judean  ministry,  even  as  the 
other  miracle  at  Cana  was  the  prologue.  That  minis- 
try, so  barren  in  Judea,  was  already  beginning  to 
bear  fruit  in  Galilee.  Jesus  had  gone  forth  with  the 
lack  of  honor  which  a  prophet  has  in  his  own  country; 
He  returned  to  meet  an  enthusiastic  reception  because 
the  Galileans  had  seen  the  things  that  He  did  at 
Jerusalem  (John  4:44-45). 

The  measure  of  faith  already  aroused  in  some  hearts 
is  shown  in  this  second  "  sign  "  at  Cana.  A  nobleman 
or  king's  officer  hastens  from  Capernaum, — a  day's 
journey, — to  beg  the  healer  to  come  to  his  dying  son. 
That  Jesus  can  heal  at  a  distance  is  beyond  his  faith : — 
naturally  enough,  for  the  only  persons  who  ever  rose 
to  that  height  were  two  Gentiles  (Matt.  8:5-13,  15: 
21-28),  and  the  faith  of  the  Roman  centurion  aston- 
ished Jesus,  while  that  of  the  Syro-Phoenician  woman 
called  forth  His  open  praise.  The  effect  of  the  Judean 
ministry  is  seen  in  Jesus'  despondent  cry,  "  Except  ye 
see  signs  and  wonders  ye  will  in  no  wise  befievel^^!. 
(John  4:  48).  And  then,  to  test  the  nobleman's  faith, 
He  says,  "  Go  thy  way :  the  child  liveth."  With  a  faith 
increased  to  the  point  of  believing  that  Jesus  can  heal 
his  son  without  going  to  Capernaum  the  father  pre- 
pares to  return;  but  it  is  now  seven  in  the  evening 
(4:  52)  :  so  he  must  postpone  his  journey  until  morn- 
ing. On  his  way  home  the  next  day,  he  meets  his 
servants  hastening  to  tell  him  that  yesterday,  at  the 
precise  hour  when  Jesus  was  speaking  with  him,  the 


122  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

fever  left  his  son.  This  completes  the  progress  of 
faith,  bringing  about  full  belief  on  the  part  of  the 
nobleman  and  his  whole  house  (4:53).  Just  what 
did  he  believe?  Probably  that  Jesus  was  truly  the 
Messiah;  but  we  have  no  means  of  knowing  what  his 
conception  of  the  Messiah  was.  If  we  might  identify 
this  nobleman  with  Chuza,  Herod's  steward,  we  could 
see  one  fruit  of  the  miracle  in  the  gratitude  which  made 
his  wife  become,  later  on,  a  member  of  the  band  of 
women  who  ministered  to  Jesus  and  the  Twelve  as 
they  journeyed  in  Galilee  (Luke  8:3). 

This  miracle  may  have  played  its  part  in  encourag- 
ing Jesus  to  undertake  the  Galilean  ministry,  in  which 
so  important  a  place  was  given  to  miracles  of  healing. 
But  that  ministry  could  not  be  begun  while  John  was 
still  doing  the  work  of  preparation.  Jesus  must  wait 
until  John  had  fulfilled  his  course.  Probably  He  had 
to  wait  but  a  few  weeks  before  the  news  came  that 
John  was  imprisoned.  Where  He  was  and  what  He 
did  meanwhile,  we  do  not  know :— the  disciples  went 
back  to  their  boats  on  the  lake. 

7.    The  Length  of  this  Ministry. 

5Jie  work  in  Judea  began  at  the  Passover  (April^ 
1 2 j3J^l3_  o f ,^27 .  A.p. ,  and  ended  with  the  journey  _ 
through  Samaria  to  Galilee.  T^at  journey  is  often 
£Ut  in  December,  thus  making  the  ministry  ei^t 
months.  The  only  authority  for  this  is  John  4:35, 
"»^ay  not  ye.  There  are  yet  four  months,  and  then 
cometh  the  harvest?  ",  which  is  taken  to  mean  that  the 
harvest  season,  which  begins  in  April,  was  four  months 
away  when  Jesus  spoke.  But  the  words  can  equally 
well  be  interpreted  as  a  proverbial  statement  meaning, 
"  After  the  time  of  sowing  one  must  wait  till  the  time 


THE  JUDEAN  MINISTRY  123 

for  reaping  " ;  and  thus,  as  we  have  seen,  they  would 
express  the  thought  of  the  disciples  after  their  labors 
in  Judea.  The  description  of  the  journey, — fatigue, 
thirst,  scarcity  of  water, — does  not  suit  the  cold,  wet 
December  of  Palestine,  but  rather  the  dry,  hot  sum- 
mer season.  Moreover,  the  return  to  Galilee  could  not 
have  been  eight  months  after  the  J^assover,  for  the 
impression  made  upon  the  Galilean  pilgrims  at  that 
feast  was  still  fresh  (4:45).  From  its  very  nature 
the  Judean  work  could  not  have  been  long.  There 
was  apparently  but  a  week  in  Jerusalem  (2  :  23)  ;  and 
a  very  few  weeks  would  be  enough  to  show  that  the 
work  in  the  country  was  a  hindrance  rather  than  a 
help  to  the  Baptist.  We  may,  therefore,  take  the  early 
part  of  May  as  the  date  of  the  return  to  Galilee. 

The  brevity  and  barrenness  of  the  Judean  ministry 
answer  the  question,  Whyis^  this  ministry  told  only  by 
John?^  The  three  Synoptists  based  their  history  on 
"THe  story  of  Jesus  as  Peter  used  to  tell  it  in  his  evan- 
gelistic preaching.  He  omitted  the  work  in  Judea, 
probably  because  it  was  brief  and  unsuccessful  and 
contained  so  little  that  would  interest  and  convert  an 
audience  of  unbelievers.  John,  writing  for  Christians, 
saw  how  important  it  really  was  as  a  revelation  of 
Jesus  to  the  world,  and  for  this  reason  put  it  in  his 
narrative. 

8.    Its  Possible  Fruits. 

There  are  few  questions  in  all  history  more  fascinat- 
ing than  the  question.  What  would  have  followed, 
had  the  Sanhedrin  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Messiah? 
Suppose  that  instead  of  rejecting  Him  they  had  recog- 
nized His  claims,  and  put  themselves  at  His  bidding, 
and  sent  forth  a  proclamation  to  the  people  that  their 


124  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Messiah  was  come, — what  then?     It  seems  as  if  the 
whole  course  of  the  world's  history  would  have  been 
changed.     The  Jews  would  have  saved  their  own  na- 
\    tion  from  destruction;  for  Jesus, — teaching  them  to 
render  unto   Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's, — 
would  have  kept  them  from  coming  into  collision  with 
the  Roman  power.     They  would  also  have  been  the 
best  possible  instruments  for  converting  the  world  to 
Christianity.    The  Jew  has  rare  qualifications  as  a  mis- 
sionary (Paul  is  a  proof  of  that),  and  in  the  days  of 
Jesus  he  had  special  facilities  for  such  work.     His 
brethren  were  in  every  important  city  throughout  the 
lands  of  civilization  (Acts  15  :  21)  ;  and  every  Jewish 
synagogue  could  be  used  as  a  center  of  Christian  mis- 
sions, even  as  the  apostles  vainly  tried  to  use  them 
later  on.     Doubtless  the  conversion  of  the  world  was 
delayed  for  centuries  by  the  Sanhedrin's  refusal  to 
recognize  Christ.     What  changes  would  have  been 
made  in  Jewish  worship  and  religious  life,  we  cannot 
tell.    The  temple  would  have  remained,  preserved  from 
the  torch  of  the  Roman  soldier;  but  the  temple  ritual 
must  needs  be  transformed.     Indeed,  if  Jesus  was  ac- 
cepted as  the  Messiah,  a  revolution  must  be  wrought  in 
the  whole  ecclesiastical  system  which  was  the  pride  of 
Judaism.    This  was  the  real  reason  why  the  Sanhedrin 
j   rejected  Jesus.     To  receive  Him  would  involve  the 
I,  transformation  of  all  their  conceptions  of  righteous- 
i,  ness,  the  abandonment  of  their  proud  spiritual  dictator- 
I   ship,  and  the  loss  of  princely  revenues  connected  with 
/    the  temple  worship.     That  was  clear  from  the  outset. 
/     Is  it  to  be  wondered  at,  all  things  considered,  that  the 
rulers  refused  to  recognize  Him;  and  that  the  Judean 
ministry  was  a  failure? 

If  the  Jews  had  accepted  Jesus  as  their  Messiah, 


THE  JUDEAN  MINISTRY  125 

what  then  about  His  death?  This  question  is  forced 
upon  us;  and  its  answer  is  far  more  difficult.  Cer- 
tainly He  labored  earnestly  in  the  hope  and  expecta- 
tion that  they  would  accept  Him ;  to  hold  otherwise,  is 
to  make  His  ministry  a  mere  pretence.  And  certainly, 
if  they  had  accepted  Him,  they  would  not  have  decreed 
that  He  must  die,  and  lent  themselves  to  compass  His 
death.  When  we  try  to  go  beyond  these  two  facts,  in 
our  thought  of  what  might  have  been,  we  enter  a 
region  where  men  dijffer  so  greatly  in  their  ideas  about 
predestination  and  their  theories  of  the  atonement,  that 
no  unanimity  of  opinion  is  possible.  To  the  present 
writer  the  following  statements  commend  themselves : 

I ).  Jesus  from  the  beginning  of  His  ministry  knew 
that  He  must  lay  down  His  life  for  the  world.  Though 
He  kept  it  a  secret,  like  His  Messiahship,  yet  as  the 
evangelist  John  perceives,  the  necessity  of  a  sacrificial 
death  was  in  His  thoughts  from  the  outset  ( i :  29, 
2 :  19;  3  :  14,  cf.  Mark  2  :  20).  Old  Testament  proph- 
ecy declared  it;  His  knowledge  of  human  nature  con- 
firmed it;  His  desire  to  reveal  the  love  of  the  Father 
unto  the  uttermost  led  Him  on  to  it.  Two  conceptions 
of  the  Messianic  work  run  parallel  through Ihe  Hebrew 
Scriptures, — one  is  of  the  triumphant  king  who  crushes 
afr  foes  beneath  his  feet ;  the  other  is  of  the  suffering 
servant  of  Jehovah  who  pours  out  his  life  as  an  offer- 
ing for  sin.  These  two  conceptions,  so  seemingly 
contradictory,  Jesus  was  to  combine  in  one,  reconciling 
them  by  making  the  road  to  death  the  pathway  to  the 
throne. 

2).  The  time  and  manner  of  that  death  He  did  not 
know  at  first.  The  divinely  appointed  mission  of  Israel 
was  to  be  a  light  to  the  Gentiles,  the  preacher  of  sal- 
vation to  the  whole  world.    And  while  it  was  clearly 


120  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

declared  in  the  Old  Testament  that  not  all  of  Israel 
would  accept  this  mission,  yet  there  was  reason  to  hope 
that  many,  perhaps  the  majority,  would  do  so  by  first 
accepting  Him  as  the  Messiah  and  then  being  ready 
to  bear  His  message  to  heathen  lands.  And  His  death, 
whether  at  the  hands  of  His  own  countrymen  (Is.  53) 
or  of  the  heathen  (Ps.  22),  with  the  victory  over  death 
that  must  inevitably  follow,  would  be  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  message. 

3).  When  the  Jews,  first  the  rulers  and  then  the 
people,  placed  themselves  in  final  opposition  to  Jesus, 
it  became  evident  that  His  death  would  be  at  their 
hands.  And  from  that  hour,  as  we  shall  see,  the  char- 
acter of  His  ministry  was  correspondingly  changed. 
If  the  cross  was  to  stand  hard  by  the  walls  of  Jeru- 
salem, He  must  so  labor  that,  on  the  one  hand,  the  act 
of  His  nation  in  denying  Him  would  be  without  excuse, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  His  gospel  still  would  be  car- 
ried to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  as  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth. 


X 

THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY 

I.   The  General  Character. 

GALILEE  in  area  was  a  little  larger  than  Rhode 
Island,  its  dimensions  being  about  fifty  miles 
from  north  to  south  and  thirty  from  east  to  west. 
According  to  statements  of  Josephus  its  population  in 
the  middle  of  the  first  century  was  three  millions.  This 
seems  incredible,  since  it  is  almost  six  times  the  popu- 
lation of  Rhode  Island;  yet  Josephus  knew  the  land 
intimately,  and  was  writing  for  Romans  who  knew  it 
nearly  as  well.  Certainly  Galilee  was  a  fair  and  fer- 
tile land,  crowded  with  cities  and  villages,  in  strong 
contrast  to  Judea  which  had  few  large  cities  except 
Jerusalem  and  much  of  whose  territory  was  wilder- 
ness. The  contempt  and  derision  heaped  upon  Galilee 
by  the  Judeans  was  partly  caused  by  envy. 

The  people  of  Galilee,  likewise,  were  in  contrast  to 
those  of  Judea.  They  were  not  as  purely  Jewish; 
indeed,  the  land  had  once  been  known  as  Galilee  of  the^K 
Gentiles  (Is.  9:2).  They  were  busy  with  trade  and 
farming,  accustomed  to  meet  foreigners  because  great 
thoroughfares  of  the  world  passed  through  their  land, 
noted  for  their  bravery  and  independence,  receptive 
to  new  ideas.  Josephus  says  that  they  were  "  ever  fond 
of  innovations,  and  by  nature  disposed  to  changes,  and 
delighting  in  seditions,"  though  he  has  in  mind  specially 
the  men  of  Tiberias  with  whom  he  had  trouble.    Herod 

127 


128  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Antipas  ruled  Galilee,  and  ruled  it  well.  He  took  no 
interest  in  the  Jewish  religion,  and  would  not  hinder 
Jesus  from  preaching  doctrines  that  in  Judea  would  be 
sternly  suppressed  by  the  Sanhedrin.  The  Galileans 
were  just  as  devout  as  the  Judeans;  but  the  synagogue 
A  had  far  more  to  do  with  shaping  their  religious  thought 
than  the  temple,  and  its  influence  was  more  wholesome. 
The  Messianic  hope  was  strong,  perhaps  even  stronger 
than  in  Judea;  for  the  apocalyptic  literature,  which 
nourished  and  shaped  it,  "  was  written  for  the  most 
part  in  Galilee, — the  home  of  the  religious  seer  and 
mystic"  (Charles). 

His  failure  in  Judea  had  by  no  means  caused  Jesus 
to  abandon  His  attempt  to  win  the  Jews  as  a  nation. 
The  rulers  would  not  accept  Him ;  now  He  will  appeal 
to  the  people.  For  this  purpose  He  selects  the  more 
promising  field  of  Galilee,  and  devotes  Himself  to  work 
among  the  masses.  H  He  can  win  the  Galileans,  either 
presently  the  Sanhedrin  will  be  led  to  change  its  atti- 
tude and  declare  Him  the  Messiah;  or  else  Galilee, 
already  separate  from  Judea  politically,  will  become 
separate  spiritually;  and  the  Messianic  kingdom  can 
have  its  center  here.  His  work  is  simple  in  method, 
•'•■■  and  uses  Capernaum  as  its  headquarters,  this  city  being 
a  good  center  because  it  is  easy  of  access  and  important. 
Jesus  has  a  home  here  (Mark  2:1,  Matt.  4 :  13)  either 
with  Peter  or  with  His  own  brethren  and  mother  who 
possibly  now  lived  here  (John  2:  12)  ;  and  we  notice 
that  He  is  reckoned  as  a  citizen  of  Capernaum  in  the 
collection  of  taxes  (Matt.  17:24).  From  Capernaum 
He  makes  systematic  toiirs  throughout  Galilee,  teach- 
ing, preaching  and  healing  the  sick.  Until  increasing 
hostility  closes  their  doors,  He  uses  the  synagogues 
on  the  days  of  public  service  (Saturday,  Monday  and 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  129 

Thursday)  ;  but  He  is  ready  to  teach  wherever  He  finds 
an  audience.  Special  disciples  accompany  Him,  but 
probably  do  not  preach,  though  they  may  help  by  per- 
sonal work  with  individuals.  The  small  expense  of 
such  tours  is  borne  by  friends  and  grateful  acquaint- 
ances. In  the  opening  chapter  of  Mark  we  have  a 
description  of  one  day's  work  which  is  a  good  sample 
of  all. 

If  Jesus  would  win  the  people,  He  must,  first  of 
all,  attract  their  attention.  This  is  one  purpose  of 
the  miracles;  they  serve  as  a  church  bell.  But  they 
draw  many  who  are  simply  curious  or  eager  for  heal- 
ing, and  who,  therefore,  form  an  unpromising  field 
in  which  to  work.  Next,  He  must  proclaim  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand,  and  endeavor  to  make  His 
audience  understand  the  nature  of  the  kingdom.  The 
current  ideas  are  so  unlike  those  which  Jesus  would 
impart  that  this  task  is  one  of  great  difficulty.  His 
miracles  by  their  character  reveal  the  nature  of  the 
kingdom,  and  His  teaching  does  this  still  more  plainly : 
but  the  significance  of  the  miracles  is  rarely  grasped, 
and  the  teaching  is  often  lost  sight  of,  or  even  rendered 
impossible,  through  the  excitement  caused  by  the 
miracles.  Finally,  He  must  offer  Himself  to  the  peo- 
ple as  the  Messiah.  He  cannot  do  this  until  they 
understand  and  accept  His  form  of  the  kingdom. 
They  are  ready  to  hail  a  Messiah  who  will  usher  in  the 
kingdom  they  desire.  Can  Jesus  induce  them  to  accept 
the  higher  ideal?  This  is  the  problem  before  Him; 
and  in  solving  it  He  will  face  again  the  temptations  of 
the  wilderness,  especially  the  bread  temptation. 

The  whole  Galilean  ministry  is  a  period  of  great 
activity.  Jesus  is  constantly  surrounded  by  crowds ;  so 
that  sometimes  there  is  no  chance  even  to  eat,  and  He 


130  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

has  to  steal  away  for  an  opportunity  to  pray.  There 
are  miracles  almost  by  the  wholesale.  People  hasten 
to  bring  their  sick  to  Him  for  healing,  and  repeatedly 
we  are  told,  "  He  healed  them  all."  The  excitement 
increases  and  becomes  so  great  that  His  friends  or 
family  fear  for  His  sanity,  or  at  least,  hearing  that 
people  are  saying,  "  Jesus  is  beside  himself,"  become 
anxious  lest  the  statement  be  true  (Mark  3:21).  There 
is  a  general  holiday  atmosphere  about  the  work  in 
Galilee,  which  greatly  troubles  John  the  Baptist  when 
he  hears  of  it  in  his  prison.  At  the  same  time  there 
is  an  increasing  activity  and  bitterness  of  enemies,  espe- 
cially of  emissaries  from  the  Sanhedrin ;  and  the  people 
are  so  slow  to  grasp  the  teachings  about  the  kingdom 
of  God  that  there  is  a  necessary  silence  about  the  Mes- 
siahship. 

Any  chronological  arrangement  of  the  incidents  in 
the  Galilean  ministry,  or  indeed  in  any  of  the  minis- 
tries, must  be  most  uncertain.  The  evangelists  did  not 
try  to  arrange  their  story  chronologically.  Probably 
they  could  not  have  done  so,  if  they  had  tried.  The 
order  of  Mark  was  in  the  main  followed  by  Matthew 
and  Luke;  and  the  best  thing  we  can  do,  if  we  must 
have  a  chronological  arrangement,  is  to  follow  Mark, 
inserting  the  incidents  not  told  by  him  as  best  we  can. 
The  length  of  this  ministry  depends  upon  the  date 
which  is  selected  as  the  conclusion  of  the  Judean  min- 
istry. The  imprisonment  of  John,  which  seems  to  have 
taken  place  very  soon  after  Jesus  left  Judea,  was  the 
signal  for  beginning  the  Galilean  work;  and  it  con- 
tinued until  shortly  after  the  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand, which  was  near  the  time  of  a  passover  (John 
6:  4,  cf.  Mark  6:  39).  If  the  Judean  ministry  ended 
in  May,  27  a.d,,  this  passover  must  be  that  of  March, 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  131 

28  A.D.  Those  who  make  the  Judean  ministry  continue 
until  December,  2^  a.d,_,  cannot  crowd  all  the  work  of 
the  Galilean  ministry  into  the  next  four  months,  and 
so  have  to  suppose  that  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand 
was  at  the  passover  season  of  29  a.d.  But  a  period 
of  sixteen  months  for  the  Galilean  ministry  is  far  too 
long;  the  situation  and  the  narrative  agree  that  the 
course  of  events  leading  up  to  the  crisis  which  termi- 
nated the  work  was  a  rapid  one. 

2.    The  Popularity  of  Jesus. 

From  His  first  public  appearance  in  Galilee  Jesus 
was  surrounded  by  crowds,  excited,  curious,  busy  but 
evidently  friendly.  Everything  conspired  to  cause  this. 
He  began  His  Galilean  ministry  by  working  miracles, 
and  with  some  fame  as  a  miracle  worker  already  gained 
in  Judea.  "  There  is  an  irresistible  bias  in  Orientals 
of  all  religions  to  run  after  the  mere  shadow  of  a 
prophet  or  miracle  worker,"  says  Dr.  Thompson;  and 
when  we  remember  how  densely  packed  with  cities 
and  villages  Galilee  was,  we  can  understand  why  a 
multitude  would  quickly  collect  around  Jesus  wherever 
He  went.  His  opening  message  was  similar  to  that  of 
John  the  Baptist, — "  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  at  hand :  repent  ye  and  believe  in  the 
gospel"  (Mark  i:  15), — a  message  which  would  al- 
ways attract  attention.  And  as  the  crowds  listened 
to  Him  they  were  held  spellbound,  more  by  the  novel 
manner  of  His  preaching  than  by  the  subject-matter 
which  often  they  failed  to  understand.  "  He  taught 
them  as  one  having  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes  " 
(Mark  1:22).  No  scribe  ventured  to  give  his  own 
opinion  except  as  supported  by  what  some  great  rabbi 
of  old  had  taught;  but  Jesus  demanded  that  His  hear- 


13S  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

ers  should  believe  His  words  simply  because  He  Him- 
self uttered  them.  The  difference  between  the  two  is 
the  difference  between  "  It  hath  been  said  by  them  of 
old  time  "  and  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you."  The  scribe 
sought  to  be  "  a  well-cemented  cistern,"  holding  every 
word  of  his  teachers;  Jesus  was  a  fountain,  having 
within  Himself  the  source  of  all  His  teachings.  Like 
the  rabbis  He,  too,  was  a  teacher  of  the  law;  but 
"  the  rabbis  interpreted  the  law  as  they  found  it :  Jesus 
laid  down  a  new  law ;  and  when  He  spoke,  it  was  with 
the  air  of  command  "  (Sanday).  Again  the  catholicity 
of  His  preaching  was  novel  and  most  attractive.  His 
hearers  were  of  all  classes;  for  He  was  open  to  all, 
and  had  a  message  for  all.  The  rich  and  the  poor,  the 
rabbis  and  the  rabble,  the  Pharisees  and  the  publicans, 
stood  side  by  side  in  His  audience,  and  felt  that  His 
interest  embraced  them  without  distinction.  Above  all, 
there  was  a  winsomeness,  a  graciousness,  about  His 
words  (Luke  4:22)  which  made  His  audience  hang 
upon  His  utterances.  It  was  the  grace,  the  charm,  that 
dwelt  in  the  man  Himself.  The  great  religious  lead- 
ers,— Buddha,  Confucius,  Mohammed,  Francis  of  As- 
sissi  and  the  rest, — have  had  this  quality  of  personal 
charm  which  draws  forth  the  love  and  devotion  of 
disciples.  Jesus  had  it  pre-eminently,  as  incident  after 
incident  in  His  history  shows.  Men  and  women  were 
attracted  to  Him  and  followed  Him  constantly,  not 
because  they  understood  His  teachings  or  hoped  for 
personal  gain,  but  because  their  hearts  went  out  to  Him 
in  complete  surrender. 

At  the  outset  the  sole  show  of  opposition  was  by 
demoniacs;  and  Llis  overthrow  of  this  only  increased 
the  reverence  and  favor  of  the  people  (Mark  1:23- 
27).    The  Galileans  were  not  disturbed,  as  the  Judeans 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  133 

would  have  been,  by  the  fact  that  He  healed  on  the 
Sabbath,  though  we  notice  that  they  would  not  bring 
their  sick  to  be  healed  on  that  day  (Mark  i :  29-34). 
When  He  started  out  on  His  first  tour  in  Galilee  the 
synagogues  were  all  open  for  His  preaching  (Mark 
1:39).  But  when  the  authorities  learned,  in  spite 
of  His  stern  command  to  keep  it  secret,  that  a  leper 
had  crept  into  some  city, — probably  in  the  evening, — 
where  Jesus  was  staying  (Luke  5: 12)  and  had  been 
touched  and  healed  by  Him,  they  became  alarmed,  and 
for  a  time  refused  Him  admission  into  the  cities  for 
fear  of  a  repetition  of  such  pollution.  They  evidently 
disapproved,  if  not  of  Him,  of  the  outcasts  He  drew 
around  Him,  It  was  the  faint  yet  definite  beginning 
of  a  future  opposition;  and  this  is  the  reason  why 
Mark  tells  the  story  in  detail  (i :  40-45). 

Although  from  this  time  hostility  was  steadily  de- 
veloping (as  we  shall  see  later),  the  fame  of  Jesus 
continued  to  spread,  and  general  favor,  also,  seemed  to 
be  constantly  increasing.  Notes  of  this  growing  popu- 
larity are  found  in  Mark  2:2,  "  And  many  were  gath- 
ered together,  so  that  there  was  no  longer  room  for 
them,  no,  not  even  about  the  door;  and  he  spake  the 
word  unto  them,"  and  3 : 7-10,  "  Jesus  with  his  dis- 
ciples withdrew  to  the  sea ;  and  a  great  multitude  from 
Galilee  followed ;  and  from  Judea,  and  from  Jerusalem, 
and  from  Idumaea,  and  beyond  the  Jordan,  and  about 
Tyre  and  Sidon,  a  great  multitude,  hearing  what  great 
things  he  did,  came  unto  him.  And  he  spake  to  his 
disciples,  that  a  little  boat  should  wait  on  him  because 
of  the  crowd,  lest  they  should  throng  him ;  for  he  had 
healed  many;  insomuch  that  as  many  as  had  plagues 
pressed  upon  him  that  they  might  touch  him,"  We 
notice  also  the  effect  of  the  miracle  at  Nain,  "  Fear 


134  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

took  hold  on  all ;  and  they  glorified  God,  saying,  "  A 
great  prophet  is  arisen  among  us,  and  God  hath  visited 
his  people  "  (Luke  7:  16-17),  which  is  only  somewhat 
stronger  than  the  effect  of  the  other  miracles. 

While  multitudes  thronged  to  Jesus,  many  of  them 
came  simply  from  curiosity,  and  others  to  gain  heal- 
ing for  themselves  or  for  friends.  And  though  there 
seemed  to  be  general  favor,  there  was  scanty  spiritual 
response.  The  teachings  about  the  kingdom  of  God 
produced  so  feeble  impression  and  gained  so  little 
acceptance  that  Jesus  could  not  proclaim  Himself  the 
Messiah  of  the  kingdom.  Indeed,  the  very  fact  that 
^  He  spent  so  much  of  His  time  in  teaching  hindered 
His  recognition;  for  a  teaching  Messiah  was  a  Sa- 
maritan conception  and  not  a  Jewish.  Evidently  His 
popularity  was  superficial,  and  He  could  trust  Himself 
unreservedly  to  the  people  here  no  more  than  in  Judea. 
Meanwhile  His  enemies  were  steadily  but  stealthily 
working  up  an  opposition. 

3.    The  Choice  and  the  Training  of  the  Twelve. 

It  is  in  connection  with  the  great  spread  of  the  fame 
of  Jesus,  and  the  thronging  of  multitudes  to  see  and 
hear  Him,  that  Mark  narrates  the  choice  of  the  Twelve. 
Jesus  had  begun  His  work  in  Galilee  by  calling  from 
their  fishing-boats  four  of  the  men  who  had  been  with 
Him  in  Judea, — Simon  and  Andrew,  James  and  John 
(Mark  i:i6f.).  The  call  this  time  was  to  a  per- 
manent companionship  in  which  He  would  prepare 
them  for  their  life-work, — "  Come  ye  after  me,  and  I 
will  make  you  to  become  fishers  of  men."  Philip  and 
Bartholomew  were  probably  soon  added  to  the  number, 
as  they,  too,  had  been  his  companions  in  Judea.  The 
call   of  Levi  the  publican,   whose   other  name   was 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  135 

Matthew,  took  place  after  the  first  preaching  tour. 
The  promptness  with  which  he  left  his  place  of  toll  and 
followed  Jesus  (Mark  2:  14)  is  not  strange,  if  already 
he  had  heard  Jesus  preach,  and  was  filled  with  the 
desire  to  be  a  follower.  How  the  others  of  the  Twelve 
were  gained  is  not  told.  But  we  know  that  in  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  Jesus  was  always  surrounded  with  a 
band  of  disciples,  both  men  and  women.  Some  of 
these  came  voluntarily;  some  He  called;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  some  who  wished  to  follow  Him  were  dis- 
couraged and  forbidden.  Besides  the  Twelve  there 
were  others  who  were  with  Him  almost  constantly 
from  the  beginning  of  this  ministry,  so  that  Peter, 
when  seeking  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas,  had  no  diffi- 
culty in  finding  at  least  two  men  who  met  the  require- 
ments he  laid  down  for  an  apostle, — "  Of  the  men, 
therefore,  that  have  companied  with  us  all  the  time 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  went  out  among  us, 
beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto  the  day  that 
he  was  received  up  from  us,  of  these  must  one  become 
a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection"  (Acts  1:21- 
22).  We  might  arrange  the  disciples  of  Jesus  in  four 
groups  of  increasing  closeness,  viz. : — believers,  like 
Mary  and  Martha  and  Simon  the  leper,  who  welcomed 
Him  to  their  homes  but  did  not  journey  with  Him; 
companions,  like  Mary  Magdalene  and  Matthias,  who 
formed  the  group  of  daily  followers  in  His  preaching 
tours;  the  Twelve,  who  were  selected  from  this  group 
to  be  apostles;  and  the  innermost  circle,  Peter,  James 
and  John,  who  were  privileged  to  share  experiences 
(Mark  5:37;  9:2;  14:33)  from  which  the  rest  of 
the  Twelve  were  debarred. 

It  was  when  the  work  had  increased  to  a  point  where 
Jesus   felt  the  need  of  assistants,  that  He  selected 


136  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

twelve  of  His  disciples  to  be  apostles.  As  the  name 
disciple  means  a  learner,  so  the  name  apostle  means  one 
sent  forth, — a  missionary.  Mark  expressly  states  that 
the  Twelve  were  chosen  "  that  they  might  be  with 
Him  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach  " 
(3  :  14).  The  first  purpose  of  the  choice  was  a  neces- 
sary preliminary  to  the  second.  These  men  must  come 
in  closest  contact  with  Him  (contact  that  an  impostor 
would  shun  because  his  fraud  would  certainly  be  de- 
tected), must  share  His  daily  life,  receive  private 
explanations  of  His  hard  sayings,  be  patiently  trained 
until  they  were  in  mind  like  Him,  before  they  could  be 
sent  forth  with  a  gift  of  miraculous  powers  to  preach 
His  gospel  through  the  land.  Plow  far  Jesus  at  this 
time  had  also  in  mind  the  training  of  these  men  against 
a  future  day  when  He  would  be  taken  from  them  and 
the  work  would  be  left  in  their  hands,  we  can  only 
surmise.  Certainly  it  was  such  a  training ;  though  not 
until  after  the  close  of  the  Galilean  ministry  did  He 
begin  to  speak  of  that  day. 

All  the  Twelve  probably  were  Galileans,  except 
Judas  who  was  Iscariot,  i.e.,  the  man  from  Cherioth, 
a^Jittle  TowiTln  JudeaT"  The  question  why,  with  His 
knowledge  oTmen,  Jesus  selected  Judas  Iscariot  to  be 
one  of  the  number,  is  best  answered  by  saying  that 
Judas  had  in  him  the  possibility  of  a  magnificent  apos- 
tle. Though  Jesus  later  on  says  he  "  is  a  devil  "  (John 
6: 70),  He  also  later  on  calls  Peter,  "  Satan  "  (Matt. 
16:23).  One  of  the  Twelve  (unless  his  appellation, 
like  that  of  the  other  Simon,  indicates  simply  his  char- 
acter, "the  zealous")  had  been  a  Zealot,  a  fanatical 
opponent  of  the  Roman  government;  another  had  been 
a  tax  collector,  a  servant  of  the  same  government :  in 
this  we  see  the  sway  of  Jesus  over  spirits  originally 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  137 

most  diverse.  The  social  standing  of  the  Twelve  is 
often  unduly  disparaged.  The  father  of  James  and 
John  had  hired  servants  (Mark  1:20);  John  knew 
the  highpriest  and  had  access  to  his  palace  (John  18: 
15);  Matthew  could  give  a  great  feast  in  his  own 
home  (Mark  2:  15).  Nor  were  they  such  illiterate 
men  as  is  sometimes  represented.  The  Jews  empha- 
sized education;  and  the  statement  about  Peter  and 
John  that  the  Sanhedrin  perceived  they  were  unlearned 
and  ignorant  men  (Acts  4 :  13),  means  simply  that  they 
were  laymen  and  not  rabbis.  Still  the  choosing  of  the 
apostles  from  the  common  people  rather  than  from  the 
recognized  leaders  (and  there  were  such  who  might 
have  been  chosen)  is  most  significant;  and  the  trans- 
formation of  these  fishermen,  tax  collectors,  and  the 
like,  into  the  masterbuilders  of  the  Christian  church 
was  a  marvellous  work, — a  spiritual  miracle. 

4.   The  Growth  of  Opposition. 

When  Jesus  had  withdrawn  from  Judea  without 
gaining  recognition,  and  John  had  been  cast  into  prison 
for  his  fearless  denunciation  of  the  incestuous  mar- 
riage of  Herod  Antipas,  the  rabbis  at  Jerusalem  doubt- 
less felt  that  this  Messianic  movement  was  practically 
ended.  It  had  gone  the  way  of  numerous  predecessors ; 
and  they  could  dismiss  it  from  their  attention.  Soon 
the  news  came  that  the  fanatic  from  Nazareth  had  re- 
appeared in  the  North,  and  was  drawing  greater 
crowds  than  John  ever  drew.  This  roused  them  at 
once  to  send  agents  who  should  watch  Him  and,  so  far 
as  possible,  stop  His  work.  The  Pharisees  of  Galilee 
could  feel  little  sympathy  with  what  Jesus  was  doing; 
but  their  active  opposition  was  instigated  by  emissaries 
from  Jerusalem.     Its  growth  is  clearly  indicated  in 


138  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Mark  by  a  series  of  incidents  apparently  selected  for 
that  purpose.  They  reveal  a  steady  increase  both  in 
the  gravity  of  the  charges  against  Jesus  and  in  the 
boldness  with  which  these  charges  are  uttered.  It  is 
worth  while  to  study  them  in  detail. 

a).    The  Charge  of  Blasphemy  (Mark  2:  1-12). 

When  Jesus  was  back  in  Capernaum,  after  His  first 
missionar}'-  tour,  His  preaching  place  was  His  own 
house  (2:1),  perhaps  because  the  synagogue  was 
closed  to  Him,  though  later  on  we  find  it  open  again 
(John  6 :  59).  Pharisees  and  doctors  of  the  law,  some 
of  them  from  Judea  and  Jerusalem  (Luke  5:17), 
were  present  to  hear  Him  and  to  watch  His  work.  The 
others  might  be  of  little  importance;  but  the  rabbis 
from  Jerusalem  would  be  revered  and  influential. 
They  heard  Him  say  to  the  paralytic  let  down  through 
the  roof,  "  Thy  sins  be  forgiven " ;  and  a  strong 
though  unspoken  resentment  arose  in  their  hearts. 
They  could  not  have  supposed  that  Jesus  claimed  au- 
thority to  forgive  sins  as  God  or  in  the  place  of  God; 
such  a  claim  would  have  made  them  rend  their  gar- 
ments in  horror  (cf.  Mark  14 :  63  f.).  Rather  He  was 
blasphemously  usurping  the  authority  of  the  priests, 
who  alone  as  God's  appointed  representatives  could, — 
after  proper  penance  and  sacrificial  offerings, — declare 
sins  forgiven.  Still,  the  prophets  had  taught  that  for- 
giveness did  not  depend  upon  penance  or  sacrifices,  and 
had  themselves  pronounced  sins  forgiven  (e.g.,  II  Sam. 
12:  13).  So  the  scribes  could  not  speak  out  against 
Him.  And  when  His  rebuke  of  their  unspoken  cen- 
sure was  followed  by  the  miracle  of  healing,  the  popu- 
lar excitement  and  favor  were  too  great  for  them  to 
do  or  say  anything.  But  their  hostile  attitude  towards 
Him  was  strengthened. 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  139 

b).    Association  with  Outcasts  (Mark  2:  13-17). 

The  call  of  Matthew-Levi,  and  the  feast  with  other 
publicans  and  sinners  in  his  house,  stirred  up  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees  more  deeply.  If  they  had  been  at  all 
disposed  to  favor  Jesus  (as  some  may  have  been)  be- 
cause He  seemed  to  be  engaged  in  a  work  of  purifying 
the  people  and  preparing  for  the  coming  of  the  king- 
dom, this  put  an  end  to  their  favor.  His  ideal  of  a 
holy  life  was  evidently  far  other  than  theirs.  Still 
they  could  not  say  that  He  was  actually  transgressing 
any  law  of  God ;  He  was  only  failing  to  endorse  their 
ideal.  They  now  revealed  their  strong  disapproval,  not 
to  Him  but  to  His  disciples,  thus  attempting  to  destroy 
His  reputation  and  influence.  The  charge  was,  "  He 
cannot  really  be  a  good  man,  or  he  would  not  thus  share 
the  life  of  bad  people."  The  reply  of  Jesus  was  tact- 
ful (He  did  not  wish  to  alienate  these  critics)  but 
unanswerable :  "  The  worse  you  hold  these  men  to  be, 
the  more  it  is  my  duty  to  seek  them  out  and  make 
them  better;  if  they  were  perfect  men,  they  would  not 
need  my  warning  to  repent  and  prepare  for  the  king- 
dom of  God." 

c).    Neglect  of  Fasting  (Mark  2:  18-22). 

The  scribes  grew  bolder  in  their  opposition,  and 
came  directly  to  Him  with  the  reproach,  but  in  the 
form  of  a  question,  that  He  was  not  teaching  His  dis- 
ciples to  fast.  (Note  that  Matthew  puts  the  question 
in  the  lips  of  John's  disciples;  but  Mark  and  Luke  are 
better  in  assigning  it  to  these  same  scribes.)  Jesus  in 
answer  stated  the  true  idea  of  fasting, — an  outward 
expression  of  an  inward  frame  of  mind.  And  He  de- 
clared, in  two  parable  germs, — the  patch  on  the  gar- 
ment and  the  new  wine  in  old  wineskins, — that  His 
mission  was  not  to  improve  the  old,  but  to  bring  in 


140  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

something  wholly  new.  This  continued  disapproval  of 
the  scribes,  and  their  evident  hostility,  called  forth  His 
first  veiled  hint  of  the  sorrowful  failure  of  His  work 
(2 :  20).  Since  the  fasts  which  they  would  have  Him 
keep  were  not  obligatory  (for  the  law  of  Moses  ap- 
pointed only  one,  that  on  the  Day  of  Atonement),  the 
scribes  could  not  openly  condemn  Him  for  neglecting 
them;  but  they  had  their  opinion  just  the  same. 

d).    Sabbath-Breaking  (Mark  2:23-3:6). 

jrhe_Sabbath  was  thej^eculiar  glory  of  the_Jews. 
Into  no  other  part  of  their  religious  life  did  they  enter^ 
with  more  enthusiasm,  enlarging  and  guarding  the 
Fourth  Commandment  by  a  multitude  of  rules  and 
restrictions.  At  the  same  time  their  Sabbath-keeping 
was  the  supreme  illustration  of  empty  formalism, — an 
emphasis  of  letter  instead  of  spirit,  of  sacrifice  instead 
of  mercy  (Matt.  12:7).  No  wonder,  then,  that  Jesus' 
treatment  of  the  Sabbath  repeatedly  violated  their 
rules  (e.g.,  Luke  13: 10-17  ^^^^  I4*  1-6,  both  belong- 
ing probably  to  the  Galilean  ministry),  and  that  such 
violations  aroused  their  hostility  to  the  highest  degree, 
and  could  be  considered  proof  that  He  was  a  Samari- 
tan, and  had  a  devil  (John  8 :  48). 

Mark  gives  two  instances  to  illustrate  how  the  hos- 
tility arose.  The  first  is  Jesus'  defence  of  His  dis- 
ciples when  they  plucked  ears  of  grain  as  they  passed 
through  the  fields  on  the  Sabbath.  The  time  must  have 
been  early  in  the  Galilean  ministry  for  the  grain  harvest 
ended  in  June.  The  statement,  "One  (or,  a  thing) 
greater  than  the  temple  is  here  "  (Matt.  12  :  6),  sounds 
like  an  echo  of  the  teaching  at  the  first  Passover.  The 
violation  of  the  Sabbath  consisted  both  in  plucking  the 
grain  and  also  in  rubbing  off  the  chaff  (Luke  6:1), 
which  the  Pharisees  deemed  a  kind  of  threshing.     It 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  141 

was  a  petty  matter,  which  the  people  at  large  would 
not  regard;  but  the  Pharisees  were  quick  to  criticise 
it,  and  Jesus'  defence  of  His  disciples,  especially  His 
words,  "  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man 
for  the  Sabbath;  so  that  the  Son  of  Man  is  lord  even 
of  the  Sabbath,"  centered  their  attention  upon  His 
attitude  towards  the  Sabbath. 

They  now  watched  Him  closely,  and  on  another  Sab- 
bath waited  in  the  synagogue  to  see  whether  He  would 
heal  a  man  with  a  withered  hand.  Jesus  called  the 
man  forth,  and  then  made  an  appeal  to  them  to  endorse 
an  act  of  mercy  performed  on  the  Sabbath  day.  The 
heartless  silence  which  was  their  only  reply  filled  Him 
with  righteous  anger;  and  He  ordered  the  man  to 
stretch  forth  his  hand,  whereupon  it  was  restored 
whole.  The  Pharisees  were  frenzied  (Luke  6:ii): 
the  man  was  healed;  and  yet  all  that  had  been  done 
was  to  command  him  to  stretch  forth  his  hand, — an  act 
that  could  in  no  way  be  construed  into  a  violation  of 
the  Sabbath.  They  felt  that  Jesus  had  made  fools  of 
them,  and,  therefore,  was  a  specially  subtle  and  dan- 
gerous transgressor;  and  the  problem  henceforth  was 
how  to  overthrow  Him  (not  necessarily  to  kill  Him). 
Why  the  Herodians  should  be  concerned,  is  not  evi- 
dent ;  they  may  have  been  roused  against  Him  by  His 
increasing  popularity,  and  possibly  Herod  himself  was 
beginning  to  be  alarmed. 

e).    The  Charge  of  Diabolism  (Mark  3:22-30). 

This  had  been  concocted  at  Jerusalem  in  light  of 
reports  brought  thither  (Mark  3:22).  It  was  a 
shrewd  and  plausible  explanation  of  Jesus'  career. 
The  miracles  could  not  be  denied;  but  they  might  be 
credited  to  Satan  working  through  Jesus;  and  this 
explanation  would  be  in  harmony  with  the  Sabbath- 


142  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

breaking  and  the  other  charges  against  Him.  If  the 
people  could  be  made  to  accept  it,  His  power  was 
destroyed.  The  demand  for  miracles  would  not  at  once 
cease, — since  sufferers  are  willing  to  try  even  unholy 
means  for  relief, — but  no  one  would  accept  His  teach- 
ings; and  when  the  people  had  no  physical  wants  to 
bring  to  Him,  they  would  forsake  Him  utterly. 

It  would  be  unjust  to  call  this  charge  of  diabolism 
a  malicious  lie  of  the  Pharisees.  Probably  they  hon- 
estly believed  it,  and  with  seemingly  good  reason. 
They  insisted  that  the  character  of  any  miracle  must 
be  determined  from  the  character  of  the  man  who 
wrought  it.  In  this  they  were  right;  the  law  itself 
had  prescribed  this  test  (Deut.  13  :  i) ;  and  if  we  were 
passing  judgment  upon  a  miracle  today,  we  would 
I  adopt  it.  And  the  Pharisees  found  proof,  to  their 
^  minds  strong,  that  Jesus  was  an  evil-minded  man. 
They  pointed  out  His  fondness  for  feasting  instead  of 
fasting,  which  showed  Him  to  be  a  glutton  and  wine- 
bibber;  His  delight  in  the  society  of  publicans,  harlots 
and  other  outcasts;  His  slight  valuation  of  washings, 
tithes,  circumcision  and  such  legal  ordinances;  and 
above  all.  His  deliberate  disregard  of  the  Sabbath. 
Was  it  not  manifest  to  any  thoughtful  critic  that  this 
man  was  a  child  of  Satan,  and  that  He  was  deliberately 
seeking  to  lead  the  people  into  sin?  If  so.  His  miracles 
were  lying  wonders,  wrought  by  the  powers  of  evil. 

The  error  of  the  Pharisees  arose  from  deliberately 
ignoring  the  manifest  spirit  of  truth  and  love  which 
prompted  and  pervaded  all  the  work  of  Jesus.  In 
their  dislike  of  Him  they  were  willing  to  suppose  that 
He  was  doing  good  from  evil  motives,  and  setting  up 
a  kingdom  of  God  in  service  of  Satan.  To  take  such 
an  attitude  was  to  destroy  all  ability  to  perceive  moral 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  143 

distinctions.  It  was  more  than  denouncing  Jesus;  it 
was  pronouncing  light  to  be  darkness,  good  to  be  evil 
(Is.  5  :  20),  which  is  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Any  fuller,  clearer  revelation  of  the  true  character  of 
Jesus  would  not  avail  to  overcome  their  opposition, 
because  the  more  He  wrought  the  works  of  His  Fa- 
ther, the  more  they  would  pronounce  these  works  to  be 
Satanic.  Hostility  could  not  reach  a  greater,  more 
hopeless  degree.  The  only  question  was,  How  far 
would  it  spread,  and  to  what  consequences  would  it 
lead? 

5.   The  Change  in  Popular  Feeling. 

Certain  incidents  in  the  later  part  of  the  Galilean 
ministry  are  significant  as  showing  that  the  general 
favor  with  which  Jesus  was  regarded  at  the  outset 
was  slowly  disappearing.  One  is  His  use  of  parables 
to  convey  the  truth  He  wished  to  impart.  We  natu- 
rally think  of  a  parable  as  an  interesting  and  impres- 
sive form  of  teaching  by  comparison,  whereby  some 
event  in  the  world  of  nature  or  some  incident  in  human 
life  is  made  to  elucidate  a  spiritual  truth.  This  is 
true;  and  the  parables  of  Jesus  are  among  the  most 
familiar  and  helpful  of  His  teachings.  Nevertheless,  a 
parable  means  nothing,  if  the  interpretation  is  lack- 
ing; and  only  those  who  love  the  truth  and  are  pre- 
pared to  receive  it  can  interpret  it  without  aid.  Even 
the  Twelve  more  than  once  had  to  ask  Jesus  to  explain 
some  parable  He  had  spoken  (Matt.  13:36;  15:  15). 
Accordingly  we  find  Jesus  putting  His  teachings  into 
the  form  of  parables  most  often  when  His  audience 
is  made  up  in  part  of  sympathetic  hearers  and  in  part 
of  enemies  lying  in  wait  to  catch  Him  in  His  talk. 
The  one  class  is  instructed  by  them;  the  other  class  is 


144.  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

baffled.  For  example,  when  publicans  and  sinners  were 
drawing  near  to  hear  Him,  and  the  Pharisees  and  the 
scribes  were  standing  apart  and  murmuring  against 
His  associates  (Luke  15 :  1-2),  He  told  the  parable  of 
the  Prodigal  Son.  To  those  who  were  heavy  hearted 
from  conscious  sinfulness  it  was  a  picture  of  their  own 
degradation,  and  a  wonderful  message  of  possible  for- 
giveness; but  the  self-righteous  critics  found  in  it 
nothing  but  idle  talk  about  a  foolish  boy  and  a  doting 
father.  The  use  of  parables,  therefore,  in  preaching 
the  kingdom  to  the  multitude  by  the  seaside,  "  as  they 
were  able  to  hear  it"  (Mark  4:  if.),  shows  that 
among  His  hearers  were  some  who  were  squarely  hos- 
tile. The  account  follows  directly  after  that  of  the 
charge  of  diabolism;  and  the  connection  of  the  two  is 
obvious. 

Another  note  of  impending  disaster  was  the  ques- 
tion that  came  from  J^njhe.^j|tist,  who  was  now  a 
prisoner  in  Herod's  palace  at  Machaerus,  east  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  because  he  had  dared  to  denounce  the 
abominable  marriage  of  the  tetrach  with  Herodias. 
Reports  of  what  Jesus  was  now  doing  in  Galilee  filled 
John  with  perplexity.  He  had  foretold  a  Messiah  who 
would  thoroughly  cleanse  the  threshing  floor,  and  burn 
up  the  chafif  with  unquenchable  fire;  but  Jesus  seemed 
to  have  taken  not  the  first  step  in  such  a  ministry  of 
purification.  On  the  contrary.  He  was  feasting  with 
publicans,  making  friends  with  sinners,  preaching  for- 
giveness on  easy  terms  to  all.  Naturally  John  was  sore 
troubled,  and  wondered  if  he  had  made  a  mistake  in 
declaring  that  Jesus  was  the  one  whose  way  he  was  sent 
to  prepare.  But  though  John  might  doubt  his  own  dis- 
cernment, he  had  no  doubt  concerning  the  honesty  of 
Jesus;  so  he  sent  directly  to  Him  the  question,  ^^rt_ 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  145 

ihgu  he-lbaL^ometh^ qrjook  we  for  another?  "  (Matt. 
11:3).  To  give  an  open  affirmative  answeu",  espe- 
cially in  the  presence  of  the  curious  multitude,  was 
impossible  without  breaking  the  silence  that  Jesus  was 
observing  about  His  Messiahship;  and  also  it  might 
lead  John  to  suppose  Him  to  be  exactly  the  kind  of 
Messiah  John  had  announced  would  come.  In  place 
of  doing  this  He  sent  back  a  reference  to  a  prophecy  of 
Isaiah  (61 :  1-3)  upon  which  John  had  nourished  his 
Messianic  expectations,  and  which  Jesus  was  now  evi- 
dently fulfilling  by  His  miracles  and  teachings.  Doubt- 
less the  answer  restored  John's  shaken  confidence,  and 
led  him  to  a  closer  study  of  the  teachings  of  the 
prophet  concerning  the  Messiah's  mission.  But  the 
words  with  which  Jesus  closed  His  message,  "  Blessed 
is  he  whosoever  shall  find  no  occasion  of  stumbling  in 
me,"  are  full  of  significance.  If  John,  with  all  his  con- 
fidence and  devotion,  found  it  difficult  to  believe  that 
Jesus  was  establishing  the  kingdom  of  God,  how  many 
of  those  who  lacked  John's  intimate  knowledge  of 
Jesus'  sinlessness  and  high  calling  must  not  only  have 
stumbled  in  following  but  have  turned  back  in  utter 
unbelief ! 

The  rejection  at  Nazareth  is  a  clear  indication  of 
increasing  hostility.  Luke  puts  it  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Galilean  ministry,  possibly  because  the  sermon  in 
the  synagogue  seemed  to  illustrate  the  course  of  that 
ministry;  but  the  whole  situation,  as  well  as  the  refer- 
ence to  miracles  already  wrought  in  Capernaum,  suits 
better  the  much  later  date  which  Mark  and  Matthew 
give  it.  Although  Jesus  was  received  in  His  boyhood's 
village  with  something  of  the  old-time  favor  or  at 
least  with  much  curiosity,  and  was  asked  to  preach  in 
the  synagogue.  He  found  an  obstinate  unbelief  that 


146  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

greatly  hindered  His  power  to  work  miracles, — an 
unbelief  that  astonished  Him  (Mark  6:  5-6)  ;  and  ac- 
cording to  Luke  a  murderous  attempt  was  made  upon 
His  life.  The  attitude  of  these  men  of  Nazareth  arose, 
in  part,  from  their  previous  acquaintance  with  Jesus; 
it  is  not  easy  to  accept  as  a  prophet  the  man  whom 
you  have  employed  as  your  carpenter,  no  matter  how 
good  a  man  and  how  good  a  carpenter  he  used  to  be. 
But  the  intensity  of  the  antagonism  indicates  a  greater 
cause.  We  can  explain  it  only  by  supposing  that  Naza- 
reth was  the  home  of  some  whose  intense  religious  zeal 
had  been  roused  already  against  Jesus  by  His  enemies. 
Whatever  its  cause,  this  rejection  by  those  who  had 
known  and  loved  Him  in  earlier  days  must  have  been 
specially  hard  to  endure. 

The  separate  mission  of  the  Twelve,  which  is  re- 
lated just  after  this  (Mark  6:yi.),  was  the  final 
attempt  to  win  Galilee.  The  work  of  Jesus  had  been 
hindered  by  the  constant  presence  and  increasing  oppo- 
sition of  His  enemies.  But  if  the  Twelve  be  sent  out, 
two  by  two,  to  work  apart  from  Him,  not  only  can 
they  reach  a  wider  audience,  but  possibly  they  may 
escape  the  antagonism  He  constantly  encounters. 
Whether  they  succeed  or  not,  the  mission  will  be  good 
training  for  them.  It  will  not  be  easy,  for  the}'-  are 
going  forth  in  the  midst  of  enemies  as  sheep  among 
wolves  (Matt  10:  16),  and  must  expect  to  find  an  op- 
position that  will  shut  them  out  from  many  places. 
Their  work,  like  their  Master's,  must  be  confined  to 
their  own  land  and  people  (Matt.  10:  5-6).  And  no 
labor  is  to  be  spent  upon  hostile  cities;  for  the  field 
is  larger  than  they  can  cover  before  "  the  Son  of 
Man  be  come," — whatever  that  may  mean  (10:23). 
Concerning  the  special  instructions  given  them  Kent 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  147 

says,  "  Expressed  in  modern  terms,  Jesus  commanded 
His  disciples  to  do  their  work  in  the  simplest  and  most 
direct  way,  to  avoid  unnecessary  hindrances,  and  to 
work  only  where  conditions  were  favorable;  He  also 
sought  to  impress  them  with  the  supreme  importance 
and  dignity  of  their  task,  and  to  prepare  them  for  the 
misunderstandings  and  affronts  which  they  were  sure 
to  meet." 

We  are  not  told  how  long  the  apostles  were  away  or 
what  experiences  they  underwent.  They  seem  to  have 
fulfilled  their  mission  faithfully  (Mark  6:  12  f.)  ;  and 
(if  Luke  10:  1-20  is  another  account  of  the  same  epi- 
sode) they  returned  to  Jesus  with  joy,  especially  elated 
by  their  power  to  cast  out  demons.  In  this  success  of 
His  missionaries,  Jesus  saw  the  earnest  of  the  com- 
plete downfall  of  Satan;  yet  He  admonished  them  to 
rejoice,  not  in  what  they  could  do,  but  in  what  they 
might  be  (Luke  io:i7f.).  It  was  probably  during 
this  absence  of  the  Twelve,  that  the  disciples  of  John 
the  Baptist  came  to  Jesus  with  the  news  of  their  mas- 
ter's martyrdom, — an  event  of  special  significance  to 
Jesus,  and  leading  up  to  a  complete  change  in  His 
ministry. 

6.   The  Final  Test. 

John  the  Baptist  fulfilled  his  course,  and  fell  the 
victim  of  a  wicked  woman's  hate.  Behind  that  hate, 
however,  can  we  not  see  the  more  execrable  hate  of 
the  Pharisees,  who  not  only  rejoiced  at  his  imprison- 
ment and  death,  but  may  have  actively  intrigued  to 
bring  them  about?  Certainly  Jesus  laid  the  respon- 
sibility for  John's  fate  not  upon  Herod  or  Herodias, 
but  upon  the  Jewish  rulers.  At  every  stage  John  had 
been  His  forerunner.    The  annunciation  to  Zacharias 


148  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

was  the  prelude  of  the  annunciation  to  Mary.  The 
voice  crying  in  the  wilderness  drew  Jesus  forth  from 
the  seclusion  of  Nazareth  to  begin  His  public  minis- 
try. The  first  disciples  of  Jesus  were  trained  for  their 
work  by  following  John.  When  the  Judean  ministry 
had  ended  in  failure,  the  imprisonment  of  John  was 
the  signal  to  begin  work  in  Galilee.  A  few  months 
later,  when  the  Galilean  ministry  was  still  seemingly 
on  the  flood-tide  of  success,  the  disciples  of  John  came 
bringing  the  news  of  his  death  (Matt.  14:  12);  and 
Jesus  heard  in  it  the  knell  of  His  own.  "  Elijah  is 
come  already  and  they  knew  him  not,  but  did  unto  him 
whatsoever  they  would.  Even  so  shall  the  Son  of  Man 
also  suffer  of  them"  (Matt.  17:12).  The  lack  of 
spiritual  discernment  which  had  kept  them  from 
recognizing  that  John  was  Elijah  would  keep  them 
from  recognizing  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah ;  and  the 
fate  of  each  would  be  similar. 
.  On  the  surface  there  appeared  no  reason  to  despair 

■^  of  Galilee.  The  crowds  that  followed  Jesus  were  not 
diminishing;  and  the  Twelve,  who  had  just  returned 
from  their  independent  mission,  reported  much  success. 
True,  the  Pharisees  had  grown  bold  and  bitter,  and 
were  dogging  His  steps  with  the  charge  that  He  was  a 
son  of  Beelzebub,  teaching  dangerous  errors  and  work- 
ing miracles  by  the  aid  of  Satan.  But  they  had  no 
power  to  arrest  His  work,  so  long  as  the  people  were 
loyal  to  Him.  Nor  was  there  danger  that  the  political 
authorities  in  Galilee  would  interfere.  The  fame  of 
Jesus  had  already  reached  the  palace;  and  doubtless 
they  were  discussing  whether  His  course  tended 
towards  insurrection.  But  the  guilty  conscience  of 
Herod  Antipas  suggested  the  dread  thought  that  Jesus 
was  John  the  Baptist  risen  from  the  dead  with  power 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  149 

of  miracle-working  gained  by  the  resurrection  (Mark 
6:  14).  Against  such  an  enemy  the  king  would  not 
take  steps  unless  forced  to  do  so. 

The  real  danger  lay  in  the  purely  selfish  and  super-   . 
ficial  character  of  most  of  Jesus'  following.    Men  were 
enthusiastic  over  Him;  but  why?     Because  He  was 
healing  diseases,  and  casting  out  devils,  and  bringing 
the  dead  to  life.     His  popularity  was  scarcely  other 
than  that  of  a  marvellous  physician.    The  villages  into 
which  He  entered  were  crowded  with  people  seeking 
relief    from   sufferings;   their   importunity  knew   no 
limits;  they  pressed  upon  Him  when  He  walked  the 
streets ;  they  tore  off  the  roof  when  He  was  in  a  house ; 
they  gave  Him  leisure  for  neither  food  nor  prayer. 
But  when  He  began  to  preach,  then  at  once  they  lost 
interest.     They  cared  little   for  His  doctrines;  they 
interrupted  His  most  earnest  discourses  with  frivolous 
comments  or  selfish  requests ;  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
made  no  deeper  impression  than  astonishment  because 
He  spoke  so  confidently;  and  the  parables  by  the  sea- 
shore were  enigmas  beyond  comprehension  since  men 
lacked  the  heart  to  understand.    So  long  as  there  was 
some  tangible,  selfish  gain  in  following  Jesus,  such 
men  would  follow ;  but  not  one  moment  longer.    The 
miracle  in  the  country  of  the  Gerasenes  (Mark  5:  i- 
20)    shows  the  general  attitude;  if  the  presence  of 
Jesus  involves  the  loss  of  swine,  the  swine  shall  remain 
and  He  must  go. 

The  work  of  John  had  seemed  to  lay  hold  upon  the 
hearts  of  the  people'^arid  to  produce  a  thorough  refor- 
mation, yet  it  had  proved  most  fleeting  and  ineffective ; 
was  the  present  work  as  futile  ?  This  was  the  question 
that  weighed  on  the  mind  of  Jesus,  and, — more  than  a 
desire  for  rest  or  for  an  opportunity  to  sorrow  in  quiet 


150  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

over  the  death  of  His  faithful  herald, — led  Him  to 
seek  with  the  Twelve  "  a  desert  place  apart."  A 
crowd,  possibly  of  pilgrims  on  the  way  to  the  feast  of 
the  Passover  (John  6:4-5),  reached  the  spot,  even 
before  His  boat  could  land,  and  changed  the  day  from 
quiet  meditation  to  active  teaching  and  healing.  When 
evening  came  on,  the  disciples  suggested  that  He  send 
the  people  away  to  find  food  and  lodging  for  the  night. 
Instead,  He  used  the  opportunity  to  test  the  quality 
of  His  work  in  a  practical  way  by  performing  a 
miracle  of  a  sort  the  multitude  had  never  seen  before. 
He  took  five  loaves  and  two  fishes,  which  happened  to 
be  at  hand,  and  with  them  fed  every  one.  This  aroused 
the  wildest  excitement.  Here  was  the  Messiah  for 
whom  they  had  been  longing, — a  Messiah  who  could 
not  only  heal  diseases  but  even  supply  food  for  all. 
Life  would  be  one  long  holiday  under  such  a  king; — 
compel  Him  to  take  the  throne  openly  and  begin  His 
reign  (John  6:  14-15).  It  seemed  for  the  moment  as 
if  this  programme  would  be  carried  out  and,  despite 
all  his  teachings  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  Jesus 
would  be  crowned  the  king  of  selfish,  sensual  men. 
Sharp  work  was  required  to  prevent  it.  He  con- 
strained His  disciples,  who  evidently  sympathized 
with  the  project  of  the  people,  to  get  into  their  boat 
and  start  for  the  other  shore;  He  sent  the  multitude 
away;  and  then,  as  His  custom  was  after  such  an  hour 
of  trial.  He  sought  the  solitude  of  the  hills  for  unin- 
terrupted prayer. 

A  day  or  two  later  some  of  this  same  crowd  came 
pouring  into  Capernaum, — which  would  be  on  their 
way  to  Jerusalem, — searching  for  Jesus,  and  not  ready 
to  give  up  the  project  of  a  kingdom.  Doubtless  they 
were  irritated  by  His  previous  refusal ;  and  the  recep- 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  151 

tion  they  now  met  with  was  calculated  to  irritate  them 
still  more.  Never  was  Jesus  more  enigmatical  and 
unresponsive  than  when  they  thronged  about  Him  in 
the  synagogue  that  day.  His  heart  was  doubly  sad 
and  sore;  His  great  forerunner,  John,  after  a  life  of 
futile  labor  had  been  foully  murdered;  and  the  effect 
of  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  and  fishes  had  shown  that 
His  own  patient  work  in  Galilee  was  equally  barren  in 
results.  He  had  succeeded  only  in  gaining  a  purely 
selfish  following,  and  had  failed  to  arouse  any  desire 
for  a  spiritual  kingdom,  and  an}'-  hunger  for  the  bread 
of  life  eternal.  Just  what  Jesus  said  to  the  multitude, 
as  they  babbled  about  manna  in  the  wilderness,  and 
demanded  fresh  exhibitions  of  His  power  to  gratify 
their  sensuous  cravings,  we  cannot  tell.  John,  after 
his  usual  fashion,  has  thrown  the  illumination  of  later 
knowledge  upon  the  scene,  and  has  told  us,  not  the 
exact  words  that  Jesus  spoke,  but  the  hidden  meaning 
that  lay  beneath  them.  To  men  excited  by  greedy 
desire  for  things  purely  physical,  Jesus  undoubtedly 
proclaimed  the  supreme  importance  of  things  spiritual, 
contrasting  the  meat  which  perisheth  with  the  meat 
which  abideth  unto  eternal  life  (John  6:27).  Their 
insistence  that  He  become  their  king  had  set  before 
Him  one  of  the  temptations  in  the  wilderness;  He 
would  give  them  in  return  the  great  truth  with  which 
He  had  met  and  overcome  that  temptation  (Matt.  4: 
4).  Something  of  the  shadow  of  the  cross,  also, 
would  naturally  be  revealed  in  His  words;  for  the 
attitude  of  these  Galileans  signified  the  approach  of 
His  death.  But  much  of  what  John  gives  us  is  a 
sacramental  discourse,  such  as  in  no  way  fits  this  early 
period  when  Jesus  was  silent  about  His  personal  claims, 
and  had  not  begun  to  teach  the  necessity  of  His  death. 


152  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

In  the  last  days  of  His  life  He  might  speak  in  this 
manner  to  the  innermost  circle  of  His  disciples;  and 
possibly  some  of  these  sayings  at  Capernaum  are  repro- 
ductions of  what  He  said  to  the  Twelve  in  the  upper 
chamber;  but  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  He  spoke 
them  thus  early,  and  to  an  ignorant  Galilean  rabble 
who  had  failed  to  grasp  His  simplest  teachings  about 
the  kingdom  of  God.  John  tells  us  nothing  about  the 
institution  of  the  Eucharist;  but  the  meaning  of  it  is 
set  forth  here.  He  places  it  here  because  he  sees  that 
what  Jesus  strove  to  accomplish  for  the  Galileans  was 
really  a  spiritual  union  with  Himself  such  as  would 
have  made  the  miraculous  supper  in  the  wilderness  a 
true  sacrament. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  response  that  Jesus 
made  to  the  greedy  crowd  in  Capernaum,  it  was  so  baf- 
fling and  incomprehensible,  that  they  turned  away  from 
Him  with  murmurs  of  rage.  John  points  to  this 
special  time  as  the  beginning  of  a  great  desertion; 
though  6:66-71  is  probably  the  summary  of  all  that 
followed  until  Peter's  confession  (Matt.  16:16). 
The  Synoptists  tell  of  some  further  ministry,  but  only 
of  healing  (Matt.  14:34-36;  Mark  6:53-56),  and 
agree  that  very  soon  Jesus  ended  the  work  in  Galilee 
by  withdrawing  into  the  parts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon.  The 
suddenness  and  completeness  of  this  collapse  of  the 
Galilean  mission  can  be  understood  if  we  realize  how 
the  scribes  had  undermined  His  favor  with  the  people. 
The  slander  that  He  was  in  league  with  the  devil  had 
borne  its  natural  fruits.  Men  had  not  ceased  to  throng 
to  Him,  eager  for  miracles,  and  while  in  His  presence 
had  felt  His  charm ;  but  they  had  grown  to  regard  Him 
as  a  strange  and  dangerous  man,  denounced  as  the 
emissary  of  Beelzebub  by  those  to  whom  they  were 


THE  GALILEAN  MINISTRY  153 

accustomed  to  look  for  religious  guidance.  If  there 
was  nothing  to  be  obtained  from  Him, — if  He  would 
not  work  miracles  nor  set  up  a  kingdom, — the  most 
prudent  thing  was  to  keep  away  from  Him.  The  dis- 
course in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum  seemed  an  an- 
nouncement that  He  had  no  more  favors  to  bestow. 
And  so  they  left  Him.  In  reality  it  was  He  who 
abandoned  His  work  for  them,  because  He  realized 
it  was  a  failure. 

The  dispute  of  Jesus  with  the  Pharisees  about  eat- 
ing with  unwashen  hands  (Mark  7  :  1-23)  is  appropri- 
ately given  at  the  close  of  the  Galilean  ministry, — 
though  possibly  it  took  place  earlier, — ^because  it  brings 
out  clearly  the  underlying  cause  of  the  failure  of  that 
ministry.  The  most  cherished  principle  of  the  Phari- 
sees was  that  the  service  of  God  is  a  matter  of  meats 
and  drinks,  of  forms  and  ceremonies,  of  rules  laid 
down  by  human  teachers  to  govern  all  outside  actions. 
The  principle  of  Jesus,  proclaimed  in  His  teachings 
and  exemplified  in  His  life,  was  the  direct  opposite  of 
this.  The  common  people  did  not  at  first  perceive  the 
contradiction;  they  could  not  even  imagine  that  the 
young  prophet  from  Nazareth  would  dare  to  set  Him- 
self squarely  in  opposition  not  only  to  their  most  hon- 
ored rabbis,  but  also  to  what  they  had  been  taught 
were  the  eternal  laws  of  righteousness.  When  they 
finally  did  awake  to  the  conflict,  and  were  forced  to 
take  sides  in  it,  the  choice  was  not  difficult.  In  their 
own  blindness  they  preferred  to  follow  blind  guides; 
and  the  call  of  Jesus  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  soon 
ceased  to  fall  upon  their  ears. 


XI 

THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS 

THOUGH  miracles  are  found  throughout  the 
public  Hfe  of  Jesus,  the  Galilean  ministry  is  the 
period  in  which  the)^  are  most  abundant.  Healings 
and  cures  of  demoniacs  seem  then  to  be  a  part  of 
each  day's  regular  work ;  there  are  also  several  nature 
miracles,  and  twice  the  dead  are  raised.  Accordingly 
it  would  seem  proper  at  this  point  to  consider  the  whole 
subject  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus. 

I.    Our  Attitude  towards  Miracles. 

An  unbiassed  study  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus  is  im- 
possible. We  cannot  take  them  up  without  a  prejudice, 
a  prejudgment,  arising  from  our  attitude  towards 
miracles  in  general.  When  Renan,  for  example,  states 
in  the  preface  of  his  life  of  Jesus,  "  Miracles  are 
things  that  never  happen,"  he  evidently  has  decided 
in  advance  to  reject  all  evidence  for  the  miracles  of 
Jesus.  And  our  attitude  towards  miracles  in  general  is 
already  fixed  by  the  scheme  of  the  universe  that  we 
have  accepted.  If  in  that  scheme  there  is  no  personal 
God,  or  God  has  no  interest  in  man,  or  man  does  not 
need  any  special  assistance  in  the  path  to  divine  knowl- 
edge and  likeness,  then  all  miracles  must  be  denied. 
In  that  case,  though  our  denial  of  the  miracles  oi 
Jesus  be  professedly  on  the  ground  that  the  evidence 
for  them  is  untrustworthy,  no  amount  of  evidence 

164 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  155 

could  make  them  credible  to  us,  because  there  is  no 
place  for  miracles  in  the  world  of  our  philosophy  and 
religion.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  accept  the  Christian 
scheme  of  the  universe,  which  recognizes  a  God  who 
is  the  creator  and  controller  of  the  universe,  and  who 
with  fatherly  love  seeks  to  bring  all  men  into  closest 
touch  with  Himself,  and  which  also  recognizes  that 
men  because  of  sin  are  blinded  to  His  presence  and  deaf 
to  His  call  so  that  they  need  special  help  in  coming 
to  Him,  then  miracles  are  not  only  possible,  but  highly 
probable ;  and  we  are  ready  to  give  due  weight  to  the 
evidence  which  supports  them.  And  if,  also,  we  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  was  sent  by  the  Father  to  reveal  Him 
unto  men,  we  take  up  the  subject  of  His  miracles  with 
the  conviction  that  if  ever  miracles  have  been  wrought, 
it  was  by  Him  in  aid  of  His  mission. 

A  common  prejudice  against  miracles  arises  from 
the  idea  that  a  miracle  is  simply  a  marvel, — the  New 
Testament  term  is  "  a  wonder," — and  therefore  is 
chiefly  a  fruit  of  ignorance.  That  which  the  savage 
would  call  a  miracle  is  often  for  the  man  of  science  a 
purely  natural  event ;  from  which  it  is  inferred  that  the 
deeds  of  Jesus  which  were  marvels  to  the  Galileans, 
and  still  remain  so  to  us,  were  natural  events  which 
will  one  day  be  understood  and  lose  their  power  to 
make  men  wonder.  The  inference  is  not  correct  be- 
cause a  miracle  is  more  than  a  marvel.  In  reality  the 
marvellous  is  the  least  important  feature  in  a  miracle, 
and  serves  simply  to  call  attention  to  it.  The  real 
value  of  a  miracle  lies  in  its  significance.  In  the  New 
Testament  we  never  find  the  word  "  wonder  "  used 
alone,  it  is  always  combined  with  the  word  "  sign," — 
"  signs  and  wonders." 

An  exact  definition  of  a  miracle  is  important  in  any 


156  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

discussion  of  miracles;  but  to  agree  upon  a  definition 
is  not  easy  because,  while  a  miracle  is  a  supernatural 
event,  men  differ  strongly  as  to  what  is  meant  by  a 
natural  event.  If  we  agree  to  recognize  in  the  opera- 
tions of  nature  the  regular,  customary  acts  of  God,  we 
may  define  a  miracle  as  an  unusual  act  of  God  filled 
with  divine  meaning.  Its  unusualness  makes  it  "  a 
wonder";  its  divine  meaning  makes  it  "a  sign."  A 
miracle  is  not  more  directly  an  act  of  God  than  any 
natural  event.  He  is  as  immediately  and  fully  active 
in  making  the  sun  to  rise  each  morning  as  He  would  be 
in  causing  it  to  stand  still  at  the  prayer  of  Joshua.  But 
because  a  miracle  is  an  unusual  act,  we  cannot  place 
it  under  any  of  the  "  natural  laws,"  which  we  learn  by 
observing  the  usual  acts  of  God  in  nature ;  and  so  we 
call  it  supernatural.  It  does,  however,  find  a  most 
evident  place  tinder  the  spiritual  laws  according  to 
which  all  of  God's  acts  are  performed,  and,  in  this 
aspect  of  it,  is  as  natural  as  any  of  His  more  usual 
acts, 

2.   The  Importance  of  Jesus*  Miracles. 

The  miracles  of  Jesus  have  been  used  from  early 
days  in  proof  of  His  divinity.  The  apostles,  it  is  true, 
seem  to  have  laid  no  great  stress  upon  any  of  them 
except  His  resurrection,  which  they  used  among  the 
Jews  to  remove  the  ignominy  of  the  cross,  and  among 
the  Gentiles  to  prove  that  He  was  indeed  the  Son  of 
God.  Very  soon,  however,  all  His  miracles  were  em- 
phasized as  the  chief  and  final  proof  that  He  was 
divine.  And  sceptics,  when  they  had  found  arguments 
seeming  to  disprove  them,  felt  that  they  had  fully 
settled  the  question  of  His  divinity  in  the  negative. 
These  arguments  are  usually  rough  and  ready, — that 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  157 

the  miracles  were  deliberate  frauds  on  the  part  of  Jesus 
or  lies  on  the  part  of  His  disciples,  or  that  the  gospel 
record  is  late  and  worthless. 

Today  the  position  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus  is  pecul- 
iar. On  the  one  hand,  we  find  it  much  more  difficult 
to  disprove  them  than  it  used  to  be.  We  realize  the 
moral  impossibility  of  deception  on  the  part  of  Jesus 
or  His  disciples,  and  we  recognize  the  strength  of  the 
evidence  for  the  early  date  and  consequent  trust- 
worthiness of  the  Gospels  and  most  of  the  other  New 
Testament  books.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  it  much 
less  easy  than  formerly  to  accept  any  miracles.  The 
age  has  been  given  to  science,  and  this  has  fostered 
habits  of  thought  averse  to  the  miraculous.  To  many 
students  miracles  are  simply  a  stumbling  block  instead 
of  a  help.  "  The  intelligent  believer  of  our  own  day," 
says  Adeney,  "  instead  of  accepting  Christianity  upon 
the  ground  of  the  miracles,  accepts  it  in  spite  of  the 
miracles;  whether  he  accepts  the  miracles  or  rejects 
them,  his  attitude  towards  them  is  towards  difficulties, 
not  helps."  No  sceptic  is  ever  convinced  by  them. 
He  is  always  able  to  answer  that  though  he  may  not 
have  an  explanation  of  them,  he  is  sure  there  must  be 
one,  and  that  the  inexplicable  is  not  necessarily  the 
miraculous.  The  foundation  of  belief  in  Christ  today 
is  not  His  miracles,  but  rather  His  character,  His  teach- 
ings, and  His  influence  upon  the  world.  And  in  our 
thought  of  His  life  as  the  Son  of  God  who  came  to 
show  men  the  Father,  the  miracles  fall  into  the  back- 
ground. 

In  thus  giving  miracles  a  subordinate  place,  we  are 
following  the  example  of  Jesus  Himself.  He  never 
wrought  them  simply  to  impress  spectators ;  the  tempta- 
tion to  do  this  was  met  and  mastered  in  the  wilderness. 


158  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

The  nearest  approach  to  an  attempt  to  convert  sceptics 
by  a  miracle  was  in  the  case  of  the  paralytic  let  down 
through  the  roof  (Mark  2 :  10)  ;  but  the  man  undoubt- 
edly would  have  been  healed  in  response  to  the  faith 
of  his  friends  who  brought  him,  even  if  the  hostile 
scribes  had  not  been  present;  and  the  miracle  did  not 
change  the  attitude  of  the  hostile  scribes.  More  than 
once  Jesus  was  asked  to  show  a  sign  from  heaven 
(e.g.,  Mark  8:11),  and  He  always  refused.  He 
sought  to  keep  miracles  from  hindering  more  impor- 
tant work,  sometimes  by  refusing  to  meet  a  crowd  that 
clamored  for  them  (Mark  i :  37),  sometimes  by  enjoin- 
ing silence  concerning  them  (Mark  5:43;  Matt.  9: 
30).  He  warned  the  Twelve  against  overvaluing  the 
power  to  perform  them  (Luke  10:  20).  And  His  final 
beatitude  was  upon  the  faith  that  needs  no  miracle  to 
create  it  (John  20:  29).  If  we  cling  so  closely  to  the 
miracles  that  we  refuse  to  believe  in  Him  without 
them,  we  cannot  claim  that  beatitude. 

3.    Why  should  Jesus  work  Miracles? 

A  useless  miracle  is  a  thing  incredible.  Though  we 
may  be  fully  convinced  that  Jesus  had  the  power  to 
work  miracles,  yet  we  properly  refuse  to  believe  that 
He  used  the  power,  unless  we  see  some  reason  for  His 
so  doing.  Can  we  discover  a  real  need  met  by  His 
miracles?  They  have  been  likened  to  a  church  bell 
calling  an  audience.  Undoubtedly  they  served  that 
purpose,  but  only  incidentally;  He  never  performed  a 
miracle  simply  to  draw  a  crowd,  and  sometimes  He  fled 
from  the  crowd  collected  by  a  miracle.  They  have  also 
been  likened  to  a  seal,  affixed  to  His  teachings  to  prove 
them  divine.  In  a  sense  they  are  such  :  Nicodemus  was 
right  when  he  said,  "  Rabbi,  we  know  thou  art  a  teacher 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  159 

come  from  God;  for  no  man  can  do  these  signs  that 
thou  doest  except  Gc^d  be  with  him"  (John  3:2). 
Still  we  notice  that  the  miracle  never  is  a  mere  marvel 
added  to  the  teaching  to  confirm  it,  nor  is  the  confirma- 
tion its  chief  purpose. 

jChrist's  work  was  one  harmonious  whole,  of  which 
the  miracles  were  a  part,  though  by  no  means  the  most 
important  part.  When  He  appeals  to  them  as  evidence, 
it  is  just  as  He  appeals  to  the  rest  of  His  work;  e.g., 
the  Baptist  may  know  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah  because 
"  the  dead  are  raised,  and  the  poor  have  the  gospel 
preached  unto  them"  (Matt.  11:5).  (Note  what 
an  anti-climax  that  statement  would  be  if  the  Messiah- 
ship  was  revealed  more  clearly  by  the  miracles  than  by 
the  preaching.)  As  Bruce  says,  the  miracles  "  were  all 
useful,  morally  significant,  beneficent  works,  rising 
naturally  out  of  His  vocation  as  Saviour,  performed 
in  the  course  of  His  ministry  in  the  pursuit  of  His  high 
calling."  There  were  two  reasons  wh}^  in  accom- 
plishing His  mission,  He  should  work  miracles : 

i).  To  help  men  to  receive  Him  as  the  Messiah.  1 
The  Jews  expected  that  the  Messiah  when  he  came 
would  work  miracles.  This  is  shown  in  the  Gospels  by 
the  repeated  demand  for  a  sign  (Matt.  12:38;  Mark 
15:  32;  John  2:  18),  and  also  by  Jesus'  own  story  of 
the  temptation  in  the  wilderness,  which  is  meaningless 
unless  He  recognized  that  in  His  Messianic  work 
miracles  would  be  asked,  and  He  had  power  to  grant 
them.  Since  this  was  the  expectation,  how  could  men 
believe  on  Him  if  He  refused  to  work  miracles  ?  There 
was  so  m.uch  in  His  life  and  teachings  totally  at  vari- 
ance with  their  preconceptions  of  the  Messiah  and  his 
kingdom,  that  if  they  were  disappointed  likewise  in  this 
matter,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  He  could  have  won  any 


160  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

faith  and  following.  "We  may  well  doubt  whether, 
without  miracles,  the  belief  would  ever  have  grown  up 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Messiah,  in  view  of 
the  striking  absence  of  those  attributes  and  functions 
which  the  Jews  expected  in  their  Messiah  "  (Sanday). 
Nevertheless  we  must  also  recognize  that  miracles  did 
not  produce  as  profound  an  impression  upon  the  be- 
holders as  we  might  suppose.  The  age  was  credulous 
and  unable  to  distinguish  between  miracles  and  mar- 
vels. There  were  many  professed  and  professional 
miracle-workers  (Matt.  12:27).  Also,  lying  miracles 
wrought  by  Satan  were  thought  possible.  A  Messiah 
who  did  not  work  miracles  would  not  be  accepted ;  but 
a  person  who  did  work  miracles  would  not  necessarily 
be  thought  the  Messiah. 

This  use  of  miracles  was  a  concession  to  the  Mes- 
sianic expectation  of  the  people, — a  gracious  adapta- 
tion of  the  work  of  Jesus  to  their  special  need.  With- 
out the  need,  there  might  not  have  been  the  miracles. 
Therefore,  if  He  were  here  today,  we  cannot  affirm 
that  He  would  work  miracles.  "  The  miracles  wrought 
by  Jesus  were  designed  for,  and  fitted  to  convince, 
those  only  for  whose  benefit  they  were  wrought, — to 
facilitate  the  planting  of  Christianity  among  them. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  designed  to  carry 
conviction  either  to  Jews  or  Gentiles  eighteen  hundred 
years  after  their  occurrence"  (Robinson). 

2).  To  make  more  clear  to  men  the  nature  of  the 
Kingdom. 

We  have  seen  how  erroneous  were  the  ideas  of  the 

}     Jews  on  this  subject,  and  how  constantly  Jesus  had  to 

\    teach  that  the  Kingdom  is  not  political  but  religious,  its 

I    life  not  carnal  but  spiritual,  and  its  central  power  not 

selfishness  but  love,  with  a  king  ruling  over  it  as  serv- 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  161 

ant  of  all.  He  taught  this  by  deed  as  well  as  by  word. 
His  miracles,  equally  with  His  words,  were  teachings 
of  sympathy,  love,  divine  providence,  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  the  like.  We  study  them  and  interpret 
them  as  such  today ;  and  in  the  Gospel  of  John  we  often 
find  that  a  miracle  is  the  text  of  a  sermon,  e.g.,  the 
opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  blind  is  the  introduction  to 
the  discourse  on  "  I  am  the  Light  of  the  world."  Such 
teaching  by  miracles  was  again  a  part  of  Christ's  con- 
descension to  human  needs.  His  words  alone  ought 
to  have  been  sufficient  statement  of  the  truth ;  but  be- 
cause of  the  dullness  and  immaturity  of  His  hearers, 
He  had  to  use  these  object  lessons. 

It  is  this  perfect  harmony  of  the  miracles  with  Jesus' 
life  and  words  that  sets  them  in  strong  contrast  to  the 
reputed  miracles  of  heathen  religions  or  of  mediaeval 
saints.  The  latter  are  usually  pure  marvels, — meaning- 
less, bizarre,  grotesque,  puerile  and  sometimes  shock- 
ing. Of  like  sort  are  the  miracles  invented  for  Jesus 
in  the  apocryphal  gospels;  they  show  what  human 
imagination  would  produce  in  the  early  Christian  cen- 
turies, and  thus  they  serve  as  an  undesigned  proof  that 
the  gospel  miracles  are  not  the  fruit  of  imagination. 
We  may  affirm  it  incredible  that  the  miracles  of  Jesus 
could  have  been  invented  by  any  evangelist,  still  less  by 
popular  imagination.  "  That  popular  imagination 
which  gives  birth  to  rumors  and  then  believes  them, 
is  not  generally  capable  of  great  or  sublime  or  well- 
sustained  efforts.  '  Wiinderthatige  sind  meist  nur 
schlechte  Gemalde'"   (Seeley). 

The  purpose  of  the  miracles  explains  the  limitation 
under  which  they  were  wrought.  Their  indispensable 
prerequisite  was  faith  on  the  part  of  those  who  desired 
them  (Mark  5:34,  36;  9:  23;  10:52);  without  faith 


162  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

the  miracle  could  not  take  place  (Mark  6:  5  f.).  This 
faith  was  not  simply  a  belief  that  Jesus  could  work 
miracles ;  it  was  also  a  recognition  that  God  was  work- 
ing through  Him  (Matt.  9:8;  Mark  5:19).  Evi- 
dently such  faith  would  be  strengthened  by  the  miracle, 
and  its  possessor  would  be  made  to  recognize  more 
clearly  the  presence  of  the  kingdom  of  God  (Matt. 
12:28) ;  whereas  the  man  who  looked  upon  Jesus  as 
a  professional  thaumaturgist  or  as  an  emissary  of 
Beelzebub  would  receive  no  spiritual  help  from  the 
boon  of  a  miracle,  and,  therefore,  could  not  be  granted 
it.  The  presence  of  such  faith  drew  forth  a  miracle 
sometimes  almost  in  contradiction  to  Jesus'  desire 
(Mark  i:4of. ;  7:24^),  or  seemingly  without  His 
direct  volition  (Mark  5:25f.).  The  destruction  of 
faith  through  the  increasing  slanders  and  charges  of 
the  Pharisees  that  Jesus  was  a  Samaritan  and  a 
demoniac  caused  the  decrease  in  miracles  in  His  later 
ministries.  There  was  no  use  of  working  them  because 
they  would  not  be  of  spiritual  profit. 

4.    Classes  of  Miracles. 

We  are  inclined  to  divide  the  miracles  of  Jesus  into 
classes,  and  distinguish  degrees  of  the  supernatural  in 
them.  To  us,  as  to  the  original  beholders,  it  seems  a 
greater  miracle,  requiring  more  divine  power,  to  raise 
the  dead  than  to  heal  the  sick,  or  to  still  a  tempest  than 
to  calm  a  demoniac.  But  there  is  no  indication  that 
Jesus  felt  any  such  difference,  or  made  any  distinction 
among  His  miracles.  He  used  exactly  the  same  act  to 
raise  Peter's  wife's  mother  from  a  bed  of  illness  and 
Jairus'  daughter  from  a  bed  of  death ;  the  one  mirac^*^ 
was  apparently  no  easier  than  the  other.  Indeed,  I 
seemed  to  make  no  distinction  between  what  we  c;' 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  163 

the  natural  and  the  supernatural.  A  miracle  was  as 
simple  and  matter-of-course  to  Him  as  an  ordinary  act. 
He  blessed_.and  broke  the  bj.£ad-^fQr. -the  five  thousand 
"near  Bethsaida  in  the  same  manner  as  for  the  two  dis- 
ciples at  Ernmaus.  Often  in  His  acts  He  blended  the 
natural  and  the  supernatural  in  a  way  that  does  not  fit 
with  our  idea  of  their  sharp  distinction.  He  multiplied 
the  loaves  and  fishes  till  the  multitude  were  filled,  and 
then  He  had  the  fragments  collected  and  saved  for 
future  food;  He  gave  life  itself  to  the  daughter  of 
Jairus,  but  He  commanded  her  parents  to  give  her 
something  to  eat. 

The  miracles  of  Jesus  are  usually  grouped  in  four 
classes,  viz. : 

i).  Acts  of  healing,  which  are  by  far  the  most 
numerous ; 

2).  Casting  out  demons,  of  which  five  or  six  in- 
stances are  described  and  a  much  greater  number  is 
indicated ; 

3).  Raising  the  dead,  viz. :  the  widow's  son,  Jairus' 
daughter,  and  Lazarus ;  and 

4).  Nature  miracles, — such  as  turning  water  into 
wine  and  stilling  the  tempest, — of  which  there  are 
nine,  if  all  the  accounts  are  accepted. 

Concerning  these  we  notice  that  each  of  the  Gospels 
contains  instances  of  all  four  classes  except  that  John 
has  no  cure  of  demoniacs,  though  it  states  that  the  Jews 
charged  Jesus  with  having  a  demon  (7:20;  8:48; 
10:  20) ;  also,  that  though  the  evidence  is  not  equally 
strong  for  each  separate  miracle,  it  is  for  each  class 
of  miracles,  e.g.,  there  is  just  as  good  evidence  that 
Jesus  performed  nature  miracles  and  raised  the  dead 
as  that  He  healed  the  sick  and  cast  out  demons.  One 
thing  more  should  be  borne  in  mind, — mere  reduction 


164.  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

of  the  number  of  miracles  is  not  an  aid  to  faith;  if  we 
believe  that  Jesus  worked  one  miracle,  it  is  easy  to 
believe  that  He  worked  many,  provided  there  was  need 
of  them. 

5.   Sceptical  Explanation  of  the  Miracles. 

Those  who  deny  the  miracles  of  Jesus  must,  of 
course,  find  some  satisfactory  explanation  of  their 
presence  in  the  gospel  story.  The  easiest  explanation 
is  that  the  miracles  are  a  later  addition  to  the  story 
made  innocently  enough  by  ignorant  and  enthusiastic 
Christians.  Some  are  simply  legends,  such  as  cluster 
around  the  memory  of  any  famous  man;  others  are 
myths,  arising  from  the  natural  supposition  that  every 
miracle  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament  was  a  fore- 
shadowing of  similar  but  far  more  wonderful  miracles 
by  the  Messiah;  others  still  are  misunderstandings  of 
the  original  story,  e.g.,  parables  or  symbolic  statements 
understood  to  be  literal  history.  Such  an  explanation 
involves  a  late  date  for  all  our  four  Gospels,  since 
Mark,  which  is  generally  considered  to  be  the  very  earli- 
est, is  replete  with  miracles,  and  the  even  earlier  docu- 
ment, O,  though  occupied  with  the  teachings  of  Jesus, 
seems  to  have  contained  one  remarkable  miracle, — the 
healing  of  the  centurion's  servant  from  a  distance. 
But  most  scholars  today  would  put  the  date  of  the  Gos- 
pels within  the  lifetime  of  some  of  the  Twelve  and  of 
others  who  knew  Jesus  personally ;  and  it  is  not  easy  to 
suppose  that  these  witnesses  would  endorse  such  a  de- 
cided transformation  of  the  actual  history  which  they 
had  witnessed.  Also,  we  notice  that  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  which  unquestionably  was  written  some  years 
after  the  other  three,  the  miracles  are  less  numerous 
and  no  more  remarkable  than  in  Mark,  which  would 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  165 

indicate  that  the  stories  did  not  grow  with  lapse  of 
time.  Moreover,  as  we  have  already  pointed  out,  the 
character  of  the  miracles  by  no  means  agrees  with  the 
character  of  those  which  later  fancy  would  invent,  if 
we  are  to  judge  from  the  absurd  miracles  related  in  the 
apocr3'^phal  gospels,  the  earliest  of  which  were  written 
in  the  second  century. 

If  an  early  date  for  the  Gospels  is  accepted,  there 
still  remain  rationalistic  ways  of  explaining  the 
miracles.  The  healing  of  the  sick,  like  a  host  of  mod- 
ern cures,  was  by  the  influence  of  mind  upon  body 
when  stimulated  by  expectancy  and  suggestion;  the 
remarkable  personality  of  Jesus  and  the  great  excite- 
ment caused  by  His  coming  account  for  the  greatness 
of  these  cures — though  some  of  them  are  doubtless  ex- 
aggerated. The  same  explanation  is  given  for  the 
casting  out  of  demons,  if  the  so-called  demoniacs  are 
held  to  be  simply  persons  of  disordered  intellect  or 
sufferers  from  epilepsy  and  similar  diseases.  The 
raising  of  the  widow's  son  and  the  daughter  of  Jairus 
were  cases  of  resuscitation ;  so  probably  was  the  raising 
of  Lazarus,  though  that  presents  special  difficulties 
and  is  of  doubtful  authenticity.  The  nature  miracles 
are  the  hardest  to  explain ;  in  some  instances  they  may 
have  been  natural  events  happening  so  opportunely  as 
to  produce  the  impression  of  special  divine  action, — the 
so-called  miracles  of  providence ;  in  other  instances  they 
were  misunderstood  parables  or  else  gross  exaggera- 
tions. 

The  rationalistic  ways  in  which  a  miracle  may  be 
explained  were  indicated  in  the  discussion  of  the 
miracle  at  the  wedding  feast  in  Cana ;  but  they  may  be 
further  illustrated  in  the  miracle  of  feeding  the  five 
thousand.     The  evidence  for  this  miracle  is  strong, 


166  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

since  it  is  told  at  length  by  all  four  evangelists,  and  is 
inseparably  connected  with  the  crisis  of  the  Galilean 
ministry;  yet  it  is  a  nature  miracle,  most  difficult  to 
account  for  in  rationalistic  ways.  The  chief  explana- 
tions are  as  follows : 

An  exaggeration  of  some  simple  incident  of  which 
'■^.      the  exact  facts  are  now  lost  (Holtzmann) ; 

Christ's  example  in  distributing  the  little  food  He 
had  shamed  the  rest  into  doing  the  same;  the  result 
was  a  common  meal  to  which  all  contributed ;  and  even 
if  it  was  scanty,  the  good  feeling  made  it  most  satis- 
fying (Keim,  Menzies) ; 

A  misunderstood  statement  about  the  spiritual  food 
with  which  Jesus  fed  the  multitude,  or  about  the 
satisfaction  of  soul  which  came  from  being  with  Him 
(Renan,  Gilbert)  ; 

An  historical  fact  except  the  closing  statement, 
"  they  were  all  filled  " ; — ^Jesus  distributed  the  food  as  a 
sacramental  meal,  and  each  took  a  minute  portion 
(Schweitzer). 

Evidently  the  only  point  upon  which  these  writers 
are  agreed  is  that  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  was 
not  a  miracle;  and  we  cannot  help  feeling  that  this 
agreement  was  reached  in  advance,  and  arose  from 
their  attitude  towards  all  miracles. 

Concerning  rationalistic  explanations  in  general,  it 
is  enough  to  say  that  they  are  always  ingenious  and 
are  often  plausible.  It  does  seem  that  much  of  the 
ministry  of  healing  by  Jesus  and  the  apostles  may 
properly  be  placed  under  psychological  laws  which  we 
are  beginning  to  formulate.  And  certain  other  inci- 
dents which  we  have  always  considered  miraculous 
may  presently  be  given  a  satisfactory  natural  explana- 
tion.    With  a  theistic  conception  of  the  universe  the 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  167 

line  between  the  "natural  and  the  supernatural  is  much 
harder  to  draw  than  in  the  days  of  deism.  But  the 
attitude  of  mind  that  makes  it  possible  to  see  God  in 
ordinary  events  as  well  as  in  extraordinary  is  an  atti- 
tude that  enables  one  to  see  most  clearly  the  revelation 
of  God  in  the  acts  as  well  as  in  the  words  of  Christ, 
and  therefore  grasps  their  value  as  signs  even  if  they 
should  some  day  cease  to  be  marvels. 

6.    Demoniacal  Possessions. 

Besides  the  usual  problems  connected  with  all 
miracles,  the  cure  of  demoniacs  presents  a  special  diffi- 
culty which  demands  discussion.  On  the  one  hand,  a 
belief  in  demons  and  demoniacs,  like  a  belief  in  witches, 
is  characteristic  of  a  low  stage  of  intellectual  and  re- 
ligious development, — a  survival  of  animism, — and 
disappears  with  the  development  of  knowledge  and 
religion;  on  the  other  hand,  Jesus  and  the  apostles, 
whom  we  take  as  our  highest  teachers,  seem  to  endorse 
the  belief  both  by  word  and  deed.  Without  this  en- 
dorsement, belief  in  demons  would  be  treated  exactly 
like  belief  in  witches;  but  with  it  we  cannot  reject 
demoniacal  possession  without  facing  a  difficult 
dilemma,  viz. :  either  Jesus  was  ignorant  and  supposed 
that  demons  exist  and  possess  men,  or  else  He  was 
deceitful  and  pretended  they  do. 

In  Palestine  in  the  first  century  belief  in  demoniacal 
possession  was  general,  and  exorcists  were  numerous. 
Josephus  has  an  interesting  account  of  seeing  a  Jewish 
exorcist  cast  out  a  demon  in  the  presence  of  Vespasian 
and  the  Roman  army  (Ant.  8:2:5).  Jesus  speaks 
of  such  exorcists,  though  it  is  doubtful  whether  He 
admits  that  they  really  did  cast  out  demons  (Matt.  12  : 
2^',  cf.  Acts  19:  i3f.).     Therefore,  in  studying  the 


168  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

gospel  narrative  we  must  recognize  that  its  accounts 
of  cures  of  demoniacs  are  possibly  influenced  by  the 
prevailing  ideas,  e.g.,  the  man  of  Matt.  12:  22  is  said 
to  have  been  possessed  with  a  demon,  but  this  may  have 
been  simply  the  inference  of  the  spectators  from  the 
fact  that  he  was  blind  and  dumb.  But  with  all  allow- 
ance it  is  evident : 

a).  That  possession  was  regarded  as  distinct  from 
disease;  though  physical  infirmities, — deafness,  dumb- 
ness, epilepsy, — were  sometimes  associated  with  it. 
The  work  of  casting  out  demons  is  carefully  dis- 
tinguished from  the  work  of  healing  (Mark  1:34, 
Luke  9 :  i ) . 

b).  That  Jesus  spoke  and  acted  as  if  demons  pos- 
sessed certain  sufferers  and  could  be  cast  out  by  Him. 
At  the  same  time,  we  notice  that  He  relied  upon  none 
of  the  usual  methods  of  exorcism  (magic  formulae, 
roots,  etc.),  but  used  direct  command,  and  said  He  cast 
out  demons  "  by  the  finger  of  God,"  or  "  the  spirit  of 
God"  (Luke  11:20;  Matt.  12:28).  For  His  dis- 
ciples to  do  the  same,  faith  was  necessary  and  prayer 
(Matt.  17:  19-20;  Mark  9:29). 

c).  That  there  is  no  indication  of  a  necessary  con- 
nection between  sin  and  possession ;  the  demonized  do 
not  seem  to  have  been  more  wicked  than  other  men. 
We  have  two  instances  of  persons  who  were  possessed 
in  early  childhood  (Mark  7  :  30;  9:  21). 

Modern  thought  is  strongly  inclined  to  explain 
demoniacal  possession  as  simply  various  forms  of 
physical  and  mental  disease.  In  certain  cases  the  be- 
lief that  the  man  was  possessed  seems  to  have  arisen 
simply  from  the  presence  of  some  physical  disease, — 
dumbness,  deafness,  epilepsy,  which  was  supposed  to  be 
caused  by  demons ;  in  other  cases  the  phenomena  seem 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  169 

to  have  been  those  of  insanity,  usually  with  double 
consciousness.  The  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah 
by  some  of  the  demonized  (Mark  i :  24,  34;  5:7)  is 
not  remarkable ;  a  person  of  disordered  intellect  might 
be  specially  sensitive  to  the  general  Messianic  expecta- 
tion which  pervaded  Jesus'  audiences,  and  would  have 
no  hesitation  in  proclaiming  the  strong  impression 
Jesus  made  upon  him. 

With  this  explanation  of  demoniacal  possession  how 
shall  we  account  for  the  seeming  belief  in  it  on  the 
part  of  Jesus  ?  If  we  say  that  He  shared  the  erroneous 
ideas  of  His  age  about  demons,  we  seem  to  lessen  His 
qualifications  as  a  spiritual  teacher.  To  share  the  ideas 
of  His  age  about  science  (e.g.,  as  to  the  motions  of  the 
earth  and  sun)  or  about  history  (e.g.,  as  to  the  author- 
ship of  Deuteronomy)  would  not  hinder  Him  from 
having  in  His  own  realm  of  spiritual  truth  the  au- 
thority that  comes  from  full  knowledge.  But  this  ques- 
tion of  demons  and  their  influence  upon  men  belongs 
quite  as  much  to  the  realm  of  religion  as  to  that  of 
science.  And  if  we  cannot  accept  the  belief  of  Jesus 
concerning  demons,  can  we  accept  it  concerning  the 
whole  unseen  world  of  personal  forces  good  or  evil? 
On  the  other  hand,  we  may  say  that  the  treatment  of 
demoniacs  by  Jesus  was  simply  an  accommodation  to 
popular  thought.  He  did  not  believe  in  the  existence 
of  demons,  but  acted  as  if  He  did,  in  order  to  gain  the 
confidence  and  co-operation  of  the  sufferers  and  their 
friends,  and  thus  produce  the  cures.  But  why  should 
He  confirm  His  disciples  in  such  an  erroneous  belief, 
e.g.,  by  His  private  endorsement  of  it  (Mark  9 :  28-9)  ? 
Can  such  conduct  be  made  to  square  with  perfect  truth- 
fulness? We  may  possibly  excuse  a  physician  for 
deceiving  a  sick  man  or  a  lunatic,  on  the  ground  that 


170  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

for  persons  in  their  condition  the  truth  is  not  really 
true;  but  how  about  the  physician  who  extends  His 
deception  further,  or  endorses  popular  ideas  when  he 
knows  them  to  be  false? 

Such  difficulties  in  accepting  the  theory  that  demoni- 
acal possession  is  nothing  but  disease  have  led  other 
students  to  maintain  the  correctness  of  the  old  opinion 
that  there  really  are  demons  and  that  Jesus  did  cast 
them  out.  It  is  pointed  out  that  gross  exaggerations 
of  a  doctrine  do  not  justify  rejection  of  it  totally.  A 
natural  reaction  from  the  absurd  development  of  the 
doctrine  of  angels  and  devils  in  the  Middle  Ages  has 
made  us  unduly  inclined  to  question  all  belief  in 
spiritual  beings.  Much  that  was  once  thought  to  be 
demoniacal  is  today  recognized  to  be  purely  human. 
Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  student  of  human  con- 
sciousness is  more  ready  than  he  was  a  few  decades  ago 
to  admit  the  possibility  of  influence  by  other  than 
human  wills.  "  No  one  except  a  materialist  believes 
that  this  world  contains  all  the  forms  of  conscious 
beings  that  exist.  There  may  be  many  kinds  and 
grades  of  consciousness  above,  as  there  are  in  our 
world  many  below,  the  human.  Nor  would  it  be  quite 
'  modem '  to  hold  dogmatically  that  the  human  con- 
sciousness is  shut  off  from  contact  with  all  forms  of 
consciousness  except  those  that  are  alive  at  any  one 
time  upon  this  earth"  (Douglas  Mackenzie).  The 
belief  in  demons  may  be  held  by  the  ignorant  in  absurd 
forms;  but  it  is  not  in  itself  an  absurdity.  That  in  the 
universe  there  should  be  other  spiritual  beings  besides 
God  and  men  seems  altogether  probable;  and  the 
existence  of  evil  spirits  is  just  as  logical  as  the  exist- 
ence of  good  spirits.  And  if  evil  spirits  exist,  their 
influence  upon  the  human  consciousness  under  certain 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  171 

conditions  and  circumstances  may  be  possible  and  no 
more  mysterious  than  the  influence  of  one  human  spirit 
upon  another.  What  those  conditions  and  circum- 
stances are  has  never  been  determined.  Demoniacal 
possession,  in  forms  very  similar  to  those  described 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  recognized  in  Korea,  China 
and  other  mission-lands  today,  and  is  regarded  by  many 
observers  to  be  wholly  distinct  from  insanity.  A  care- 
ful study  of  its  phenomena,  such  as  was  initiated  by 
Nevius,  ought  to  throw  much  light  upon  the  subject. 

7.    The  Gospel  Story  without  Miracles. 

While  faith  in  miracles  may  not  be  necessary  for 
belief  in  Jesus  as  the  divine  Saviour  of  the  world,  we 
certainly  cannot  reject  from  the  gospel  story  the  inci- 
dents which  to  the  beholders  seemed  miraculous,  and 
which  are  still  beyond  our  ability  to  explain,  without 
rejecting  practically  the  whole  of  the  story  and  confess- 
ing that  we  know  very  little  about  Jesus.  This  is  so 
for  several  reasons : 

a).  Much  of  the  gospel  narrative  is  a  record  of 
miracles.  The  gospel  of  Mark  in  particular,  which  is 
one  underlying  document  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  is 
largely  made  up  of  them.  Take  away  the  miracles,  and 
there  are  great  gaps  in  the  narrative. 

b).  The  history  of  Jesus  at  its  most  important 
points  becomes  unintelligible,  if  certain  miracles  which 
shaped  it  are  eliminated.  E.g.,  What  caused  the  crisis 
in  the  Galilean  ministry,  if  there  was  no  feeding  of 
the  five  thousand?  What  happened  at  Bethany  to 
alarm  the  Sadducees  and  make  them  join  with  the 
Pharisees  in  the  decision  that  Jesus  must  be  put  to 
death,  if  Lazarus  was  not  raised?  Even  Renan  feels 
that  something  like  a  miracle  must  have  taken  place ; — ■ 


m  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

"  some  motive  proceeding  from  Bethany  helped  to 
hasten  the  death  of  Jesus  " ;  either  some  saying  of  Jesus 
to  the  sisters  was  distorted  into  a  report  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Lazarus,  or  else  there  was  a  fraudulent 
miracle.  What  took  place  at  Jericho  to  arouse  the 
popular  Messianic  enthusiasm  that  led  to  the  triumphal 
entry?  Even  Keim  is  disposed  to  believe  that  in  some 
way, — the  blind  men  at  Jericho  were  actually  made  to 
see, — "  at  any  rate  this  healing  is  by  far  the  best  at- 
tested among  the  accounts  of  the  blind  in  the  Gospels." 
Above  all,  what  happened  to  revive  the  faith  of  the 
disciples  after  it  had  been  destroyed  by  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus  ?  Every  critic,  though  he  may  deny  the  resur- 
rection, admits  that  the  church  at  the  outset  believed  in 
it,  since  otherwise  the  existence  of  the  church  at  all  is 
inexplicable. 

c).  Teachings  of  Jesus  that  bear  on  their  face  the 
stamp  of  genuineness  are  often  inseparable  from 
miracles.  E.g.,  His  remarkable  utterances  about  the 
Sabbath  day  (Mark  3:4)  are  hard  to  account  for 
unless  a  special  divine  work  of  mercy  on  that  day  had 
called  forth  the  censure  of  the  Pharisees  and  His  own 
defence;  His  message  strengthening  the  faith  of  the 
imprisoned  Baptist  is  a  reference  to  His  mighty  works 
as  well  as  to  His  preaching ;  the  discourse  in  the  syna- 
gogue at  Capernaum  needs  for  its  explanation  the 
miracle  of  the  loaves  and  fishes:  the  account  of  the 
Temptation,  which  must  have  come  from  Jesus'  own 
lips,  presupposes  the  power  to  work  miracles. 

"  On  the  whole,"  says  Gore,  "  miracles  play  so  im- 
portant a  part  in  Christ's  scheme  that  any  theory 
which  would  represent  them  as  due  entirely  to  the 
imagination  of  His  followers  or  of  a  later  age  de- 
stroys the  credibility  of  the  documents  not  partially 


THE  MIRACLES  OF  JESUS  173 

but  wholly,  and  leaves  Christ  a  personage  as  mythical 
as  Hercules."  Dr.  Gore's  statement  ends  with  an 
exaggeration.  Even  without  the  Gospels  Jesus  would 
be  more  than  a  mythical  personage;  the  Christian 
church,  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  Lord's  day  bear 
witness  to  His  historic  existence.  But  without  the 
Gospels  the  story  of  His  life  and  work  would  have  to 
be  reconstructed  almost  wholly  by  imagination ;  and,  in- 
deed, this  is  the  way  in  which  rationalistic  writers 
often  do  reconstruct  it. 


XII 
THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 

IN  the  Galilean  ministry  Jesus  was  mainly  occu- 
pied in  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God.  What  is 
that  kingdom?  When  is  it  established?  What  is  the 
precise  relation  of  Jesus  to  it?  These  are  questions  for 
every  student  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  Indeed,  as 
Harnack  points  out,  all  the  teachings  of  Jesus  could  be 
grouped  under  one  head, — the  kingdom  of  God  and  its 
coming.  Our  present  subject  is  the  life  of  Jesus;  and, 
though  His  words  illuminate  His  life  even  as  His  life 
illuminates  His  words,  we  cannot  enter  upon  a  de- 
tailed study  of  His  teachings.  Nevertheless,  if  His 
ministry  was  concerned  with  the  kingdom  of  God,  we 
must  gain  some  light  upon  His  idea  of  that  kingdom  in 
order  to  understand  His  ministry.  The  study  is 
forced  upon  us  to  a  special  degree  in  the  present  day 
because  scholars  differ  sharply  as  to  whether  Jesus  be- 
lieved the  kingdom  to  be  already  present  or  to  come  in 
the  future,  and  whether  He  conceived  of  it  as  ethical 
or  apocalyptic  in  character,  and  even  whether  He 
deemed  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah  or  only  a  special 
forerunner.  Evidently  our  whole  conception  of  Him 
and  His  work  will  be  shaped  by  our  answer  to  these 
problems;  and  evidently  also,  if  earnest  students  differ 
thus  widely,  the  subject  is  not  free  from  obscurities. 

I.    Presuppositions. 

For  an  understanding  of  the  words  of  Jesus  about 

174 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  175 

the  kingdom  of  God  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  the 
following  facts: 

a) .  He  had  to  express  His  thought  in  forms  adapted 
to  the  minds  of  His  hearers.  The  very  use  of  the  term 
"  the  kingdom  of  God  "  or  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven  " 
(the  Jewish  form  which  Matthew  prefers)  is  an  in- 
stance of  such  adaptation.  It  may  not  have  been  the 
most  fitting  term  for  what  Jesus  had  in  mind.  John,  in 
his  reproduction  of  the  thought  of  Jesus,  uses  as  its 
equivalent  "  eternal  life,"  which  seemed  to  him  more 
truly  expressive  of  Jesus'  meaning.  But  "  the  kingdom 
of  God  "  would  arouse  the  attention  and  interest  of  the 
Jews  because  it  was  their  favorite  term  for  the  supreme 
manifestation  of  Jehovah's  love  for  them, — the  con- 
summation of  all  their  desires.  "  That  prayer,"  says 
the  Talmud,  "  in  which  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  is  not  a  prayer."  No  other  term 
could  so  closely  link  the  work  of  Jesus  to  the  history 
and  the  hopes  of  His  nation. 

b).  Such  adaptation  had  its  inevitable  danger. 
Since  His  hearers  already  had  in  mind  definite  and 
cherished  conceptions  of  the  kingdom,  they  were  likely 
to  interpret  His  words  according  to  their  own  ideas, 
and  thus  to  misunderstand  Him.  This  is  true  even  of 
the  inner  circle  of  disciples;  and  there  is  ever  the  pos- 
sibility that,  through  such  misunderstanding,  their 
report  of  some  of  His  enigmatic  sayings  may  not  be 
correct.  "  We  must  keep  clearly  before  us  the  differ- 
ence between  what  He  meant  and  what  His  reporters 
thought  He  meant  "  (Worsley). 

c).  The  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  throws  light  upon  the  thought  of  Jesus.  His  atti- 
tude towards  the  teachings  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
expressed  in  His  statement,  "  I  came  not  to  destroy  but 


176  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

to  fulfill  "  (Matt.  5:  17).  Concerning  His  revelation 
of  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  He  said  to  His  dis- 
ciples, "  Verily  I  say  unto  you  that  many  prophets 
and  righteous  men  desired  to  see  the  things  which  ye 
see,  and  saw  them  not ;  and  to  hear  the  things  which  ye 
hear,  and  heard  them  not  "  (Matt.  13  :  17).  The  con- 
ceptions of  the  kingdom  set  forth  in  the  Old  Testament 
vary  greatly  in  degrees  of  spirituality ;  but  we  may  be 
sure  that  the  most  spiritual  were  those  which  Jesus 
endorsed,  and  that  none  was  higher,  or  more  com- 
prehensive, than  His  own. 

d).  If  Jesus  did  establish  the  kingdom  of  God,  then 
that  kingdom  is  in  our  midst  today,  and  is  a  realization, 
more  or  less  perfect,  of  the  thought  of  Jesus;  it  is  the 
plant  that  has  grown  from  the  seed  He  sowed.  To 
deny  this  is  to  affirm  either  that  Jesus  did  not  under- 
stand His  mission  or  that  He  wholly  failed  in  it. 
Nineteen  centuries  of  Christianity  have  made  evident 
concerning  the  kingdom  many  things  which  the  first 
disciples  saw  dimly  or  not  at  all;  and  the  knowledge 
thus  gained  can  be  used  in  the  interpretation  of 
Jesus'  words  about  it. 

2.   The  Kingdom  in  the  Thought  of  the  Jews. 

,  The  term,  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  may  have  taken 

»  its  rise  from  the  Book  of  Daniel  (e.g.,  2  :  44,  7:  27)  ; 
but  the  idea  it  embodies  goes  back  to  the  very  begin- 
ning of  Hebrew  history.  Josephus  expressed  that  idea 
exactly, — and  coined  a  most  useful  word  in  doing  so, — 
when  he  said  that  the  form  of  government  which  Moses 
gave  his  nation  was  a  theocracy.  Israel  was  not  the 
only  Semitic  tribe  recognizing  its  god  as  king,  and  call- 
ing him  by  that  name;  but  no  other  people  based  its 
whole  national  life  so  completely  upon  the  sovereignty 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  177 

of  its  deity.  The  early  history  of  the  Jews,  whether 
we  treat  it  as  fact  or  legend,  and  their  later  annals 
constantly  set  forth  a  covenant  relation  between 
Jehovah  as  king  and  themselves  as  His  people;  their 
lawgivers  and  their  prophets  devote  themselves  to 
developing  and  emphasizing  this  relation.  When  there 
is  an  earthly  king,  he  is  considered  to  be  the  visible 
representative  of  God, — the  vice-gerent  of  the  Most 
High;  when  the  throne  of  David  is  vacant,  and  the 
yoke  of  foreign  monarchs  is  heavy,  the  national  life 
is  kept  from  perishing  by  a  confident  expectation  that 
God  in  some  way  will  soon  deliver  His  people,  and 
resume  His  reign  over  them. 

The  century  of  Jewish  history  preceding  the  time 
of  Jesus  had  been  one  of  restlessness,  disorder  and 
misery.  Even  the  rule  of  the  Romans  had  brought 
only  partial  tranquillity,  and  had  by  no  means  dispelled 
discontent  and  heavy-heartedness.  The  kingdom  of 
God  was  in  abeyance, — that  was  evident;  because  of 
their  sins  Jehovah  was  now  punishing  the  people  by. 
allowing  the  heathen  to  rtile  over  them.  When  He 
should  be  pleased  to  resume  His  reign,  would  the 
Romans  be  driven  out  by  natural  means  or  by  super- 
natural? Who  then  would  occupy  the  throne, — a. 
descendant  of  David,  or  a  Messiah  coming  in  the 
clouds  from  heaven,  or  Jehovah  Himself  through  the 
media  of  priest  and  prophet?  The  kingdom  was  for 
Israel;  but  did  this  mean  that  every  son  of  Abraham 
would  enjoy  it,  or  only  those  who  had  faithfully  kept 
the  covenant  and  obeyed  the  laws  of  Moses?  Eventu- 
ally the  kingdom  would  extend  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth;  but  how  about  the  heathen, — would  they  be 
destroyed,  or  would  they  be  converted  to  Judaism,  or 
would  they  remain  a  subject  race,  slaving  for  Israel  as 


178  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Israel  had  once  slaved  for  them  ?  The  kingdom  would 
be  in  every  way  ideal;  but  would  its  chief  features  be 
political  or  social  or  spiritual?  Such  questions  must 
have  been  discussed  constantly,  not  only  by  learned 
rabbis  in  schools  and  synagogues  but  by  the  common 
people  in  homes  and  market-places;  for  they  were  of 
vital  interest  to  all.  And  the  answers  must  have  been 
uncertain  and  conflicting,  since  prophecies  and  apoca- 
lypses in  their  revelation  of  the  future  gave  widely 
varying  pictures,  which  appealed  in  different  degrees 
to  different  minds. 

We  have  little  means  of  ascertaining  what  views  of 
the  kingdom  were  most  popular,  except  from  the  gospel 
narrative;  and  that  may  give  us  a  wrong  impression 
because  it  records  most  often  the  opinions  of  men  who 
opposed  Jesus.  Unquestionably  these  men,  whether 
they  thought  of  the  kingdom  as  political  or  eschato- 
logical,  had  little  desire  for  the  spiritual  blessings  which 
the  great  prophets  set  forth  as  the  chief  joys  of  the 
kingdom,  and  because  of  their  selfish,  worldly  and 
dogmatic  frame  of  mind  were  unable  to  appreciate  the 
teachings  of  Jesus.  But  leaders  like  Joseph  of  Ari- 
mathaea,  "  who  was  looking  for  the  kingdom  of  God  " 
(Mark  15  :  43),  and  the  rich  young  ruler  whom  Jesus 
loved  (Mark  10:21),  must  have  had  much  nobler 
ideals ;  and  doubtless  there  were  many  whose  thoughts 
were  fashioned  by  the  highest  teachings  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Nevertheless,  the  impression  we  gain  from 
the  way  in  which  the  teachings  of  John  the  Baptist  and 
of  Jesus  were  received  is  that  in  general  the  concep- 
tion of  the  kingdom  was  a  low  one.  The  reign  of  the 
Maccabees,  which  began  with  real  consecration,  had 
ended  in  selfish  struggles  for  purely  political  power; 
and  there  had  been  nothing  in  subsequent  days  to 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  (179 

revive  and  purify  the  idea  of  a  truly  divine  rule.  The 
situation  seems  to  have  been  what  James  Orr  well 
sums  up,  when  he  says,  "  The  one  fact  which  stands 
out  clear  is  that  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  neither  Phari- 
see, nor  Sadducee,  nor  Essene  had  any  hold  of  a  con-  . 
ception  of  the  kingdom  which  answered  the  deep, 
spiritual,  vital  import  of  the  idea  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  few  who  cherished  more  worthy  views  were 
to  be  sought  for  in  the  private  circles  of  the  pious  who 
talked  of  these  things  (Mai.  3:  16)  and  'looked  for 
redemption  in  Jerusalem  '  (Luke  2 :  25,  38).  The  idea 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  its  spiritual  meaning  had 
to  be  recovered,  or  more  properly  discovered,  in  a 
worldly,  legalistic,  Sadducean  age." 

3.   The  Kingdom  in  the  Thought  of  Jesus. 

When  Jesus  was  asked  by  Pilate,  "  Art  thou  the 
king  of  the  Je\^s  ?  "  He  answered,  "  My  kingdom  is  not 
of  this  world  "  (John  18 :  36),  by  which  He  meant,  as 
Pilate  clearly  linderstood,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
not  a  political  one.  All  His  acts  and  His  teachings 
bear  witness  to  this;  He  forbade  his  disciples  to  seek 
the  authority  that  Gentile  kings  exercised  (Mark  10: 
42  f.),  and  He  warned  them  against  the  leaven  of 
Herod  (Mark  8:15),  which  is  thirst  for  worldly 
power.  Moreover,  as  Gilbert  notes,  throughout  His^ 
entire  mimstnTHe  never  dropped  a  word  of  contempt 
or^hatred  or  even  disrespect  for  the  foreign  power 
which  was  oppres.smg  "fHe  Jews  ;jahd  He  seems  to  have 
regarded  their  agents,  the  publicans,  as  pursuing  a  per- 
fectly legitimate  occupation.  A  political  kingdom,  like 
that  which  the  Maccabees  established  and  which  many 
Jews  were  longing  to  have  established  again,  would 
bring  no  spiritual  blessings,  but  rather  the  reverse; 


180  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Jesus  realized  this  at  the  outset,  when  He  rejected  the 
mountain  temptation  of  the  wilderness.  The  words  to 
Pilate,  however,  did  not  mean  that  the  kingdom  has 
no  place  on  earth  and  is  a  purely  heavenly  realm; 
whether  it  is  in  the  future  or  already  present, — a  ques- 
tion to  be  considered  later, — it  is  for  men  who  live 
under  earthly  conditions  with  human  needs  and  temp- 
tations (Matt.  6:  33,  13  :  41),  a  kingdom  in  this  world, 
though  not  of  this  world. 

The  kingdom  of  God  is  the  kingdom  over  which 
God  rules, — the  kingdom  in  which  the  will  of  God  is 
the  law  of  all  life;  more  briefly,  it  is  the  rule  or  reign 
of  God.  To  the  petition,  "  Thy  kingdom  come  "  (Luke 
11:2),  there  is  added  in  Matthew,  as  its  equivalent, 
"  thy  will  be  done,  as  in  heaven  so  on  earth  "  (Matt. 
6: 10).  All  Jews  would  accept  this  definition  of  the 
kingdom;  but  the  popular  thought  of  what  it  involves 
would  not  be  the  same  as  the  thought  of  Jesus,  because 
the  popular  idea  of  God  was  not  the  same  as  His.  To 
most  Jews  God  was  the  absolute  monarch,  a  mighty 
Oriental  despot ;  to  Jesus  He  was  the  Father  in  heaven. 
Only  once  (Matt.  5 :  35),  and  then  for  an  obvious  rea- 
son, does  He  call  Him  King,  though  the  name  would 
naturally  be  used  when  teaching  about  the  kingdom. 
Now,  the  reign  of  a  despot,  however  wise  and  just  and 
kind,  is  not  the  reign  of  a  father.  A  father's  subjects 
are  his  children,  and  the  purpose  of  his  rule,  if  he  is 
an  ideal  father,  is  to  make  his  children  one  in  character 
and  aspiration  with  himself.  This  is  the  key  to  Jesus' 
teachings  about  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  topic  is  so 
comprehensive,  He  dealt  with  it  from  so  many  stand- 
points, and  He  taught  in  such  an  occasional,  unsys- 
tematic way,  that  His  meaning  is  not  always  evident; 
but  we  shall  not  go  far  astray  in  interpreting  all  His 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  181 

words,  if  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
first  an(f  a^Iways  the  kingdom  of  the  Father. 

The  subjects  of  the  kingdom  are  all  who  with  filial 
spirit  do  the  will  of  God.  Evidently  no  barriers  of 
race  or  earthly  condition  shut  in  the  kingdom;  it  is 
open  to  all  men.  But  an  unfilial,  selfish  heart  is  a  bar- 
rier ;  and  because  men  are  by  nature  selfish,  the  invita- 
tion to  enter  the  kingdom  begins  with  a  call  to  repen- 
tance (Mark  i :  15),  and  the  transformation  required 
is  likened  to  becoming  as  a  little  child  (Mark  10:  15) 
or  being  born  anew  (John  3:3).  The  character  of 
those  who  belong  to  the  kingdom  is  set  forth  in  the 
Beatitudes  (Matt.  5:3-9).  God  always  is  the  Father, 
but  men  must  become  His  sons  by  a  change  in  their  at- 
titude towards  Him  and  towards  one  another  (Matt. 
5  :  44,  Luke  15  :  24).  For  Jesus  no  such  transforma- 
tion was  necessary  because  His  spirit  was  ever  filial, 
and  He  did  always  the  things  that  were  pleasing  to  the 
Father  (John  8 :  29).  With  the  consciousness  of  abid- 
ing in  such  perfect  relations  He  could  invite  others  to 
follow  Him  (Luke  9:58)  and  learn  of  Him  (Matt. 
II :  29).  And  yet  no  profession  of  love  and  loyalty  to 
Him,  and  no  outward  imitation  of  His  life,  could  win 
admission  to  the  kingdom  (Matt.  7:21)  :  the  doing  of 
the  will  of  His  Father  was  the  sole  condition;  and  who- 
ever did  that  will  He  recognized  as  His  brother  and 
sister  and  mother  (Mark  3  :  35). 

The  life  in  the  kingdom  is  one  of  love  and  service. 
It  is  the  divine  life;  for  God,  because  He  is  a  Father, 
is  the  Great  Servant  of  all  His  children, — of  the  evil 
and  the  good,  the  just  and  the  unjust  (Matt.  5 :  45)  ; 
and  those  who  serve  in  love  are  the  sons  of  God  (Luke 
6:  35).  It  is  the  life  that  Jesus  led  (Luke  22  :  27)  and 
set  before  His  disciples  as  a  pattern  (John  13 :  15;  15  : 


182  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

12).  It  is  the  only  true  life  of  man;  so  that  he  who 
fails  to  gain  it,  no  matter  how  full  his  earthly  exist- 
ence, has  really  lost  his  life  (Mark  8:  35  f.)  ;  in  other 
3^  words,  it  is  the  "  eternal  life,"  which  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  seems  to  be  the  equivalent  term  for  the  kingdom 

^  of  God.  The  motive  power  or  law  of  life  in  the  king- 
dom is. love  (Mark  I2:2gf.);  and  by  its  operation 
there  is  carried  forward  to  completeness  the  will  of 
God  revealed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets  (Matt.  5: 
17  f.).  The  highest  places  in  the  kingdom  belong  to 
those  who  serve  most, — a  complete  reversal  of  selfish 
gradation  of  dignities, — and  cannot  be  arbitrarily  be- 
stowed (Mark  10:35  ^O-    Unequal  opportunities  for 

I  service  will  not  affect  the  measure  of  reward, — so  the 
parable  of  the  talents  teaches  (Matt.  25:  I4f.);  but 

j  unequal  use  of  the  same  opportunities  results  in  cor- 
respondingly unequal  degrees  of  divine  commenda- 
tion,— such  is  the  lesson  of  the  parable  of  the  pounds 
(Luke  19:  12  f.).  All  service  brings  reward;  and  yet, 
as  in  the  case  of  a  father  dealing  with  his  children, 
the  reward  must  be  reckoned,  not  as  wages,  but  as  a 
gracious  gift, — this  is  the  truth  added  by  the  parable 
of  the  laborers  in  the  vineyard  (Matt.  20:  1-16).  The 
kingdom  of  God  belongs  to  those  who  render  to  God 
its  fruits;  in  other  words,  live  the  life  of  love  and  serv- 
ice; and  for  this  reason  Jesus  predicts  that  it  will  be 
taken  away  from  the  Jews  and  given  to  another  na- 
tion (Matt.  21 :43). 

The  blessings  of  the  kingdom  are  spiritual,  be- 
stowed by  a  God  who  is  spirit.  And  the  supremest 
blessing,  the  summum  honum,  is  not  the  things  of  the 
kingdom  but  the  kingdom  itself.  The  kingdom  of  God 
is  the  hidden  treasure  or  the  pearl  of  great  price,  which 
one  gladly  purchases  at  the  cost  of  all  other  possessions 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  183 

(Matt.  13  :  44-45)  ;  and  it  is  the  gift  which  the  Father's 
good  pleasure  bestows  (Luke  12:32).  This,  again, 
results  from  the  fact  that  the  kingdom  is  a  Father's 
kingdom;  the  thought  is  like  that  which  we  try  to 
express  when  we  say  the  supreme  blessing  of  a  home  is 
not  the  things  of  the  home  but  the  home  itself.  The 
popular  Jewish  conception  was  exactly  the  opposite ;  the 
blessings  of  the  kingdom  were  material, — freedom, 
power,  riches,  health  and  the  like,  and  the  kingdom  itself 
was  valued  simply  as  the  means  for  obtaining  these. 
Concerning  material  blessings,  we  notice  that  Jesus 
never  promised  His  disciples  exemption  from  the  hard- 
ships He  Himself  was  experiencing ;  and  they  saw  that 
His  lot  was  one  of  privation,  persecution  and  finally  of 
the  utmost  suffering.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  He  did 
not  regard  earthly  comforts  as  incompatible  with  mem- 
bership in  the  kingdom  (Matt.  6:  33,  Mark  10:  29  f.)  ; 
there  was  no  emphasis  of  asceticism  in  His  teachings. 
Earthly  treasures  are  not  condemned  but  they  are 
trivial  and  transient  (Matt  6:  19  f.),  and  are  not  the 
true  riches  (Luke  12:21;  16 :  11).  Since  the  blessings 
of  the  kingdom  are  those  of  the  heavenly  life,  and  the 
highest  blessing  is  the  consciousness  of  the  presence 
and  love  of  the  Father,  it  is  sometimes  hard  to  tell 
whether  Jesus  is  speaking  of  the  kingdom  or  of  heaven. 
We  are  not  sure  that  He  made  a  sharp  distinction, — 
there  was  no  great  reason  why  He  should ;  for,  unlike 
His  hearers.  He  believed  that  "  it  was  possible  for  the 
godly  to  have,  not  only  a  sure  hope  of  future  blessed- 
ness, but  also  an  abundant  experience  of  blessedness  in 
this  life"  (Wendt). 

4.   The  Time  of  the  Kingdom. 

In  the  thought  of  Jesus  was  the  kingdom  of  God 


184  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

a  matter  of  the  present  or  of  the  future?  The  answer 
is  not  obvious  because  the  statements  of  Jesus  seem 
conflicting.  Much  that  He  says  about  the  kingdom  is 
in  the  present  tense.  It  is  already  within  (or  in  the 
midst  of)  those  to  whom  He  is  speaking  (Luke  17: 
21)  ;  His  casting  out  demons  by  the  spirit  of  God  is 
a  proof  of  its  presence  (Matt.  12  :  28) ;  from  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptist  until  now  men  of  violence  take  it 
by  storm  (Matt.  11:12);  the  scribes  and  Pharisees 
neither  enter  it  themselves  nor  suffer  those  who  are 
entering  in  (Matt.  23  :  13)  ;  the  rich  man  finds  difficulty 
in  entering  it  (Mark  12 :  34)  ;  publicans  and  harlots 
go  into  it  before  the  chief  priests  and  elders  (Matt. 
21:31);  and  whoever  humbles  himself  as  a  little 
child,  the  same  is  the  greater  in  it  (Matt.  18:  4).  On 
the  other  hand,  there  are  passages  that  place  its  coming 
in  the  near  future : — ^before  the  death  of  some  who 
stand  by  (Mark  9:1);  or  before  another  Passover 
(if  this  is  the  meaning  of  Mark  14:25).  And  still 
other  passages  place  it  in  the  remote  future:  e.g.,  the 
parable  of  the  pounds,  which  is  told  to  those  who  sup- 
pose the  kingdom  of  God  is  immediately  to  appear, 
speaks  of  "  a  far  country  "  to  which  the  nobleman  must 
go  to  receive  his  kingdom  and  afterward  return  (Luke 
19:  II  f.),  and  the  parable  of  the  talents  puts  the  hour 
of  reckoning  "after  a  long  time"  (Matt.  25:19). 
Especially  striking  are  several  passages  about  a  future 
coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  apparently  to  usher  in  the 
kingdom  in  true  apocalyptic  fashion. 

Undoubtedly  the  men  to  whom  Jesus  spoke  looked 
for  a  future  kingdom.  There  was  nothing  in  their 
present  circumstances  to  suggest  that  it  was  already 
here;  indeed,  they  despaired  of  the  present,  and  pos- 
sibly found  a  miserable  pleasure  in  magnifying  its 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  185 

woes  because  they  supposed  the  increase  of  oppression 
made  the  coming  of  Jehovah  in  judgment  and  the 
inauguration  of  His  kingdom  more  certain  and  near. 
While  Jesus,  of  course,  did  not  sympathize  with  those 
who  dreamed  of  a  future  pohtical  kingdom,  some 
scholars  hold  that  He  shared  the  current  ideas  about  a 
future,  eschatological  kingdom,  and  considered  His 
present  work  to  be  simply  preparatory, — like  that  of 
John  the  Baptist.  In  this  case  the  rules  He  laid  down 
for  the  present  life  of  His  disciples  were  intended 
only  for  the  interval  until  the  kingdom  should  come. 
As  John  had  preached  repentance  and  a  life  of  right-  , 
eousness,  so  Jesus  with  keener  spiritual  insight  t' 
preached  repentance  and  a  life  of  loving  service;  both 
believed  that  the  end  of  the  present  age  and  the  coming 
of  the  eschatological  kingdom  would  be  brought  about, 
if  men  would  live  a  life  acceptable  to  God.  According 
to  these  scholars,  all  that  we  have  thus  far  set  forth 
as  Jesus'  teachings  about  the  kingdom  of  God  belongs 
properly  to  the  stage  before  the  coming  of  the  king- 
dom, and  differs  from  the  popular  teaching  mainly  in 
that  it  calls  upon  men  to  prepare  for  the  kingdom 
by  an  ethical,  spiritual  life  rather  than  by  an  absorb- 
ing devotion  to  the  law. 

Whether  Jesus  did  accept  and  teach  the  coming  of 
the  kingdom  in  its  eschatological  form,  is  a  question  to 
be  discussed  in  a  later  chapter.  But,  even  if  He  did, 
it  seems  certain  that  He  called  the  preliminary  stage,  ^ 
also,  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  would  not  be  remark- 
able; the  term  is  so  elastic  that  it  could  contain  both 
significations;  indeed,  its  wealth  of  contents  is  what 
makes  a  complete  definition  of  it  so  difficult.  Since 
the  eschatological  kingdom  has  no  ethics,  for  in  it 
"temptation  and  sin  no  longer  exist"  (Schweitzer), 


186  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

we  may  distinguish  the  kingdom  we  have  been  describ- 
ing by  calling  it  the  ethical  kingdom  of  God.  Now, 
when  we  consider  the  teachings  of  Jesus  that  are  evi- 
dently about  this  ethical  kingdom,  we  find  He  seems 
to  declare  sometimes  that  it  is  present,  and  sometimes 
that  it  is  still  in  the  future.  His  disciples  are  assured 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  already  in  their  midst  or 
within  them,  and  yet  they  are  taught  to  pray  that  it  may 
come.  The  seemingly  contradictory  statements  of  time 
still  remain,  even  if  we  ignore  the  eschatological 
kingdom. 

Possibly  the  simplest  solution  of  the  problem  of  the 
time  of  the  ethical  kingdom  is  suggested  in  the 
parables,  where  three  periods  are  clearly  distin- 
guished,— inception,  development,  consummation.  In 
one  parable  these  are  called  the  blade,  the  ear  and 
the  full  corn  in  the  ear  (Mark  4:26-29)  ;  in  another 
they  are  seed-sowing,  growth  and  the  harvest  (Matt. 
13:24-30)  ;  in  still  another  they  are  the  casting  of  a 
seine-net,  the  drawing  of  it,  and  the  sorting  of  the  fish 
(Matt.  13  :  47-50).  If  the  kingdom  of  God  is  the  rule 
of  a  loving  Father's  will,  then  it  began  at  the  time  when 
Jesus  revealed  the  Father,  and  men  were  drawn  to 
recognize  and  obey  that  rule.  Jesus  Himself,  we  might 
say,  was  the  first  and,  for  a  season,  the  only  member 
of  that  kingdom;  but  soon  it  increased,  as  disciples 
joined  themselves  to  Him  and  sought  to  bring  their 
lives  into  harmony  with  His  teachings.  Still  this  was 
only  a  period  of  feeble  beginnings, — scarcely  more 
than  preparation.  The  full  gospel  of  the  kingdom 
could  not  be  proclaimed,  because  it  was  not  yet  pre- 
pared. The  cross,  which  is  the  mightiest  revelation 
of  the  heart  of  the  Father  and,  therefore,  the  great 
door  into  the  kingdom,  was  still  in  the  future.    With 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  187 

yearning  Jesus  looked  forward  to  the  hour  when  that 
mystery  of  redemption  should  be  evident  to  His  little 
flock,  and  cheered  them  with  the  promise  that  in  their 
own  lifetime  they  should  "  see  the  kingdom  of  God 
come  with  power"  (Mark  9:1).  The  promise  was 
fulfilled  at  the  time  of  the  resurrection  and  Pentecost. 
The  kingdom  of  God  then  came  with  the  power  of  the 
cross  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  it  has  remained  in  our 
midst  with  an  increasing  revelation  of  the  Father's 
loving  will,  and  a  wealth  of  opportunities  for  loyal 
service.  The  seed-time  and  tender  blade  are  far  be- 
hind, and  the  ears  are  growing  on  the  stalks;  the 
treasures  of  God  have  been  entrusted  to  His  servants 
and  are  increasing  under  faithful  stewardship;  it  is  the 
period  of  development.  But  still  far  before  us  is  the 
day  when  the  message  and  the  work  of  Jesus  have 
borne  their  full  fruits,  and  the  harvest  is  garnered,  and, 
in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  the  kingdom  has  come. 
In  that  day,  when  God's  will  is  done  as  in  heaven  so 
on  earth,  the  kingdom  of  God  will  truly  be  equivalent 
to  heaven. 

5.   The  Kingdom  eind  the  Church. 

The  kingdom  of  God,  as  we  have  thus  far  studied  it, 
is  the  rule  or  reign  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  those  who 
love  Him.  But  certain  teachings  of  Jesus  present  it 
as  a  visible,  outward  realm,  whose  increase  in  size 
can  be  measured,  and  whose  subjects  are  not  all  true 
sons  of  God.  The  parable  of  the  mustard  herb  (Matt. 
13:31-32)  teaches  such  outward  growth;  and  the 
parables  of  the  field  in  which  tares  are  mingled  with 
wheat  (Matt.  13 :  24  f.),  and  of  the  net  filled  with  fish 
both  good  and  bad  (Matt.  13 :  47  f.),  and  of  the  wise 
and  foolish  virgins   (Matt.  25:  if.),  depict  such  a 


188  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

mingling  of  disloyal  subjects  among  the  loyal  in  the 
kingdom.  Also,  in  the  various  parables  where  the 
members  of  the  kingdom  are  represented  as  servants, 
there  are  some  who  are  careless  and  worthless  and 
finally  condemned  (Mark  13:3,6,  Luke  12:47,  Matt. 
25:30).  Evidently  the  kingdom  of  God  in  all  these 
passages  has  a  meaning  of  its  own,  and  is  nearly  (some 
would  say  exactly)  identical  with  the  church. 

The  Greek  word  ecclesia  (translated  "church")  is 
found  only  in  one  Gospel  and  only  twice  (Matt.  16: 
18;  18:  17);  and  there  may  be  question  as  to  what 
Aramaic  word  it  represents.  We  are  sure,  however, 
that  on  neither  of  these  two  occasions,  when  Jesus 
spoke  about  the  ecclesia,  was  He  teaching  ecclesiasti- 
cism.  Whatever  the  meaning  of  the  promise  to  Peter 
and  to  the  other  apostles  about  the  rock  and  the  keys 
and  the  binding  and  loosing,  the  whole  tenor  of  Jesus' 
teaching  is  contrary  to  any  interpretation  that  finds 
here  the  charter  of  an  organization  designed  to  rule 
men  with  spiritual  authority.  Lie  condemned  in  the 
Pharisees  all  desire  for  recognition  and  rule  in  matters 
religious  (Matt.  23  :  5  f.)  :  He  declared  that  the  grada- 
tion in  rank  in  the  kingdom  of  God  is  based  on 
willingness  to  serve  (Mark  io:42f.);  and  in  His 
farewell  commission,  while  He  announced  that  all  au- 
thority had  been  given  to  Him,  He  sent  forth  His 
followers  simply  to  bear  witness  and  to  make  disciples 
(Matt.  28:  18  f.;  Acts  i :  8).  Nevertheless,  from  the 
very  beginning  of  His  ministry  Jesus  seemed  to  con- 
template a  union  of  those  who  belonged  to  the  king- 
dom. The  little  band  of  apostles  and  the  larger  com- 
pany of  followers  from  which  they  were  chosen  were 
held  together  by  bonds  of  love  and  common  devotion 
to  the  kingdom.     So  far  as  they  had  any  organiza- 


p 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  189 

tion,  they  were  a  brotherhood  in  which  the  younger 
and  the  older,  the  strong  and  the  weak,  helped  one 
another  according  to  ability  and  opportunity,  while  all 
were  in  training  as  witnesses  to  the  kingdom  and  its 
king.  They  were  those  whom  Jesus  had  called  to 
follow  Him,  and  who  in  His  name  were  to  extend  the 
invitation  to  others.  The  day  might  come  when  for 
efficient  work  they  would  need  officers  and  creeds 
and  forms  of  worship  and  the  like;  but  for  the  present 
the  need  was  not  felt,  and  the  details  of  future  organi- 
zation could  be  ignored. 

This  band  of  disciples  after  the  day  of  Pentecost 
constitute  the  church.  And  sometimes  they  seem  to 
constitute  the  kingdom  of  God  in  its  present  realiza- 
tion. But  the  two  are  not  quite  identical.  The  church 
is  the  agency  for  bringing  in  the  kingdom.  It  strives 
fo  bring  every  part  of  human  life,  the  social  and 
political  as  well  as  the  religious,  into  loving  obedience 
to  the  will  of  the  Father. 


XIII 
THE  BORDER  MINISTRY 

I.   General  Character. 

THE  only  geographical  name  that  can  be  given  to 
this  period  of  Jesus'  work  is  the  one  found  more 
than  once  in  the  Synoptic  account  of  it,  namely,  bor- 
ders or  coasts,  by  which  is  meant  not  the  boundaries 
but  the  outer  regions  of  the  lands  mentioned.  Accord- 
ing to  Mark,  Jesus  went  first  to  the  borders  of  Tyre 
(7:24),  then  passed  through  Sidon  and  the  midst  of 
the  borders  of  Decapolis  (7:31)  in  a  circuit  round 
the  lake  of  Galilee;  then,  touching  at  points  on  the 
lake,  He  made  His  way  northward  into  the  villages 
of  Caesarea  Philippi  (8:27);  then  He  returned 
through  Galilee  to  Capernaum  (9:30,  33).  Some- 
where in  the  period  we  may  place  two  brief  visits  to 
Jerusalem  for  feasts  described  by  John.  Capernaum 
remained  His  home  (9:33,  Matt  17:24);  but  the 
months  were  largely  taken  up  with  slow  journeyings, 
some  of  them  seemingly  with  no  definite  goal. 

The  restlessness  which  characterized  this  period  hints 
of  spiritual  suffering  or,  at  least,  of  recognition  that 
the  night  when  no  man  can  work  is  drawing  near. 
The  cross  is  inevitable.  The  disciples  do  not"  realize 
this,  but  their  Lord  does.  Judea  has  declared  it  in 
the  worldliness  of  her  leading  priests,  the  bigotry  of 
her  spiritual  teachers;  Galilee  has  repeated  it  in  the 
selfishness  and  sensuousness  of  her  people;  Rome  has 

190 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  191 

re-echoed  it  in  the  murder  of  the  great  forerunner, 
John  the  Baptist; — the  air  is  full  of  voices  proclaiming 
the  impending  tragedy.  Most  impressive  of  all  is  the 
voice  of  ancient  prophecy,  declaring  that  the  Messiah 
must  lay  down  his  life  for  his  people.  But  the  hour  is 
not  yet  come ;  there  is  work  to  be  done  first ;  and  that 
work" is  mainly  the  traming  of  the  Twelve  so  that  they 
will  be  prepared  to  proclaim  His  gospel  when  He  sends 
them  into  the  world  as  the  Father  has  sent  Him. 

Thus  far,  though  the  Twelve  were  always  with  Him 
except  when  they  went  on  their  brief  independent  mis- 
sion, there  had  been  little  opportunity  to  teach  them  in 
private,  because  of  the  crowds  continually  around. 
And  they  had  advanced  so  little  beyond  the  status  of 
the  crowds  that  after  the  general  desertion  Jesus  asked, 
"  Would  ye  also  go  away?  "  This  ministry,  therefore, 
was  mainly  devoted  to  teaching  the  Twelve,  both  by 
direct  instruction  and  by  the  influence  of  constant  and 
closest  companionship.  And  while  the  theme  of  His 
public  preaching  in  Galilee  had  been  the  kingdom  of 
God,  this  private  teaching  was  about  "  the  things  con- 
cerning himself."  Two  stages  may  be  distinguished  in 
it — Peter's  great  confession  being  the  dividing  point: 
a  period  of  teaching  that  Jesus  is  indeed  the  Messiah ; 
and,  when  this  lesson  is  grasped,  a  period  of  teaching 
that  the  Messiah  must  die  and  rise  again.  Of  the  first 
teaching  nothing  is  preserved  (perhaps  it  was  not  so 
much  in  words  as  in  intimacy  and  influence)  ;  but 
Peter's  confession  (Mark  8:29)  shows  its  fruit,  and 
Christ's  joy  shows  how  eagerly  He  had  waited  for  such 
fruit.  Of  the  second  teaching  we  have  preserved  vari- 
ous lessons  of  the  cross,  given  with  increasing  clearness 
and  detail. 

So  far  as  public  work  is  concerned,  little  was  accom- 


192  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

plished  in  this  ministry;  it  was  not  devoted  to  public 
work.  There  was,  indeed,  a  brief  popular  period  in 
the  Decapolis;  but  the  impression  made  there  was  as 
superficial  and  evanescent  as  previously  in  Galilee. 
But  to  the  Twelve  these  summer  and  autumn  months 
must  have  been  wonderfully  helpful.  Though  the  im- 
mediate result  was  small,  the  seed  now  sown  would 
continue  to  spring  up  and  bear  fruit  long  after  the 
teacher  was  taken  from  them. 

The  Border  ministry  began  after  the  close  of  the 
popular  work  in  Galilee,  i.e.,  not  long  after  the  Pass- 
over of  28  A.D. ;  and  it  continued  until  after  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  in  October  of  that  year,  though  exactly 
how  long  after  cannot  be  determined. 

2.    Among  the  Gentiles. 

Jesus  began  His  ministry  by  withdrawing  from  Gali- 
lee, and  entering,  for  the  first  and  only  time,  into  Gen- 
tile lands — Tyre  and  afterwards  Sidon.  Doubtless  His 
purpose  was  to  take  His  disciples  away  from  the 
crowds  and  the  Jewish  environment  which  hindered 
spiritual  growth,  and  to  have  them  alone  with  Himself. 
Also,  He  may  have  been  forced  to  leave  Galilee  because 
of  Herod's  hostility.  The  attention  of  Herod  had  been 
aroused  (Mark  6:  14)  ;  and  certainly  the  report,  which 
must  have  reached  him,  that  the  people  had  tried  to 
make  Jesus  king  would  be  sufficient  reason  for  seeking 
His  death.  We  notice  that  during  the  greater  part  of 
this  ministry  Jesus  stays  outside  of  Herod's  territory, 
and  when  He  does  come  back  into  Galilee,  He  tries  to 
keep  His  presence  secret  (Mark  9:30);  also  during 
this  period,  or  a  little  later.  He  is  warned  that  Herod 
wishes  to  kill  Him  (Luke  13  131). 

Here  in  a  heathen  land  it  might  seem  that  He  would 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  193 

remain  unknown ;  but  people  from  this  region  who  had 
been  to  Him  in  Galilee  at  once  recognized  Him  (Mark 
3:8);  and  a  Syro-Phoenician  woman,  a  Gentile,  came 
begging  Him  to  cast  a  demon  out  of  her  daughter. 
According  to  Matthew  (15:23)  the  Twelve,  when 
Jesus  answered  her  not  a  word,  joined  in  her  petition. 
The  remarkable  hesitation  with  which  He  performed 
the  miracle  arose  in  part  from  unwillingness  to  do 
anything  that  might  draw  a  crowd  and  hinder  the 
seclusion  He  was  seeking,  in  part  from  a  wish  to  test 
both  the  faith  of  the  woman  and  the  catholicity  of  the 
disciples,  but  most  of  all  from  the  knowledge  that  any 
work  among  these  Gentiles  would  end  all  chance  of 
winning  His  countrymen.  He  had,  indeed,  in  Caper- 
naum healed  the  servant  of  a  centurion,  probably  a 
Gentile,  at  the  express  request  of  Jewish  elders  (Luke 
7 :  i-io)  ;  and  in  the  present  instance  the  woman's  faith 
and  persistence  and  humility,  together  with  the  petition 
of  the  Twelve,  caused  Him  finally  to  grant  her  prayer; 
but  there  is  no  record  of  any  other  miracle  for  Gentiles 
unless,  possibly,  in  Decapolis.  Even  if  there  remained 
but  faint  hope  of  winning  the  Jews,  He  must  put  no 
stumbling  block  in  their  way,  and  give  them  no  excuse 
for  rejecting  Him.  There  would  be  a  day  when  the 
Gentile  world  might  come  freely  to  the  feast  (Luke  13 : 
29) — a  plain  hint  of  this  is  in  the  statement  that  the 
children  first  must  be  fed  (Mark  y:2y)',  until  that 
day  they  must  wait,  though  a  crumb  from  the  children's 
table  might  be  given  this  suppliant  woman. 

For  the  same  reason  Jesus  could  not  reach  out  to  the 
Jews  of  the  Dispersion.  They  were  more  liberal- 
minded  than  their  brethren  in  Palestine,  better  pre- 
pared to  accept  His  teachings;  and  as  He  had  turned 
from  Judea  to  Galilee,  so  He  might  once  more  turn 


194  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

from  Galilee  to  the  outer  lands  where  His  countrymen 
were  waiting  for  the  Messiah.  The  step  seemed  natu- 
ral,— His  enemies  so  considered  it  (John  7:  35) ;  but 
there  was  no  possibility  that  in  this  way  he  would 
eventually  reach  the  Sanhedrin,  and  it  was  not  the  way 
of  His  supreme  manifestation.  A  Jew  of  the  Disper- 
sion would  one  day  follow  Him — bearing  the  cross  to 
Calvary  (Luke  23:26). 

3.    The  Work  in  Decapolis. 

From  the  purely  heathen  lands  of  Tyre  and  Sidon 
Jesus  came  with  the  Twelve  into  the  region  known  as 
the  Decapolis  (the  ten  cities),  south  and  east  of  the 
lake  of  Galilee.  The  cities  were  originally  Greek 
colonies,  some  of  them  founded  by  veterans  from  the 
army  of  Alexander  the  Great.  Alexander  Jannaeus 
(104-78  B.C.)  annexed  them  to  the  Maccabean  king- 
dom, but  Pompey  gave  them  their  independence  again, 
about  63  B.C.  They  were  now  united  in  a  league,  and 
under  the  general  control  of  the  Romans  as  a  part  of 
Syria  ;  but  each  city  managed  its  own  affairs,  coined  its 
own  money,  and  had  a  large  measure  of  independence. 
Greek  was  the  general  language,  and  there  was  much 
commercial  and  intellectual  activity;  several  famous 
Greek  scholars  came  from  these  cities.  The  Jews 
dwelling  here  would  be  more  nearly  like  those  of  the 
Dispersion  than  their  brethren  in  Judea  and  Galilee. 
That  the  crowd  around  Jesus  was  partly  heathen  is 
indicated  in  Matthew's  statement,  "  They  glorified  the 
God  of  Israel"  (15:31). 

Once  in  the  Galilean  ministry  Jesus  had  crossed  the 
lake  to  a  region  of  Decapolis  where  He  healed  a 
demoniac  (Mark  5:1-20).  Any  further  work  there 
was  then  impossible  because  of  the  selfish  opposition 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  195 

aroused  by  the  destruction  of  a  herd  of  swine  in  con- 
nection with  the  heaHng;  but  we  notice  that,  contrary 
to  His  usual  custom,  Jesus  ordered  the  news  of  what 
He  had  done  to  be  published  widely,  which  would  seem 
to  indicate  either  that  He  wished  to  stir  up  the  men  of 
Decapolis  to  visit  Him  in  Galilee,  or  that  He  planned 
at  some  later  day  to  return  and  labor  in  this  region. 
Why  He  now  returned  and  took  up  the  work  we  are  not 
told.  Possibly  He  felt  that  having  sent  the  healed 
demoniac  as  His  herald,  He  ought  to  follow  him  up; 
more  probably  it  was  forced  upon  His  sympathetic 
attention  as  He  was  passing  to  or  from  Jerusalem. 
The  work  was  a  brief  repetition  of  that  in  Galilee, 
though  miracles  here,  even  more  than  there,  seem  to 
have  occupied  the  crowd  to  the  exclusion  of  teaching; 
and  it  ended  with  another  miraculous  feeding — this 
time  of  four  thousand.  Many  critics  consider  this 
miracle  to  be  only  another  version  of  the  feeding  of  the 
five  thousand  because  the  details  are  so  similar;  but 
Mark  gives  a  distinct  account  of  both ;  and  if  he  gained 
his  material  from  Peter,  he  could  hardly  be  mistaken. 
The  difficult  problem  is,  Why  were  the  Twelve  so  much 
at  loss  as  to  how  the  multitude  could  be  fed  (Mark 
8:4),  if  they  had  previously  seen  a  still  larger  number 
fed?  But  this  very  detail,  so  unexpected,  makes  for 
the  genuineness  of  the  narrative.  The  only  explana- 
tion is  that  the  disciples  always  were  surprised  at 
nature  miracles,  and  slow  to  expect  them. 

4.   At  the  Unnamed  Feast. 

"  After  these  things  there  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews ; 
and  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem  "  (John  5:1).  If 
John  had  only  named  the  feast,  how  much  discussion 
would  have  been  prevented !    "  A  feast  of  the  Jews  " 


10fi  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

describes  any  one  in  the  list,  and  each  has  had  its  advo- 
cates. Some  manucripts  read  "  the  feast  of  the  Jews," 
which  is  sHghtly  more  definite  but  may  be  Passover, 
Pentecost,  or  Tabernacles.  John  tells  the  incident  in 
a  chapter  just  preceding  that  in  which  he  tells  of  the 
feeding-  of  the  five  thousand,  thus  indicating  a  feast 
during  the  Galilean  ministry ;  but  there  are  strong  rea- 
sons for  thinking  that  in  some  way  the  two  chapters 
have  been  transposed,  or  that  John  did  not  here  follow 
the  chronological  order  ("  after  these  things  "  is  a  mere 
formula  of  introduction),  and  told  the  incident  of  the 
feast  directly  after  the  account  of  the  Judean  ministry 
because  it  seemed  to  him  the  real  conclusion  of  that 
ministry.  If  we  place  the  unnamed  feast  after  the 
Passover  which  was  at  hand  when  the  five  thousand 
were  fed,  it  naturally  would  be  Pentecost ;  and  the  visit 
of  Jesus  would  fall  in  the  early  part  of  the  Border 
ministry,  perhaps  even  before  the  work  in  Decapolis. 

Though  Jesus  seems  purposely  to  have  kept  away 
from  Jerusalem  during  the  time  He  was  making  the 
attempt  to  win  Galilee,  when  that  attempt  had  failed 
he  turned  to  Jerusalem  again.  There  was  still  a  pos- 
sibility, faint  yet  not  to  be  neglected,  that  the  rulers 
might  accept  Him  and  proclaim  Him  the  Messiah; 
and  even  if,  as  everything  indicated,  His  death  was  to 
be  at  their  hands,  they  must  not  be  able  to  plead  that 
they  had  been  misinformed  concerning  Him ; — ^knowl- 
edge of  what  He  was  and  what  He  was  doing  should 
be  given  them.  Yet  to  visit  Jerusalem  was  perilous; 
and  if  He  were  arrested  and  imprisoned  or  put  to  death 
then.  His  work  of  training  the  Twelve  would  be 
stopped  before  it  was  completed.  During  the  great 
feasts,  where  hosts  of  friendly  Galileans  were  present, 
He  would  be  safe,  at  least  in  daytime, — the  nights 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  197 

must  be  spent  in  concealment  (John  8:  i;  Luke  21: 
37)  ;  yet  His  visits  must  be  so  unexpected  and  brief  as 
to  give  little  opportunity  for  His  enemies  to  plot  and 
compass  His  arrest.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  in  this 
last  year  of  His  life  He  went  up  to  Pentecost  (if  this 
was  the  unnamed  feast),  Tabernacles  and  Dedication; 
but  the  first  two  visits  seem  to  have  been  without  the 
company  of  the  Twelve;  the  second  was  "  as  it  were  in 
secret " ;  and  in  no  case  did  He  remain  after  the  feast 
was  ended.  John  is  the  only  evangelist  who  recognizes 
the  importance  of  these  visits  and  records  them. 

The  Sanhedrin  had  kept  well  informed  about  the 
Galilean  ministry;  they  knew,  for  example,  that  Jesus 
was  accustomed  to  heal  on  the  Sabbath  (John  5 :  16). 
In  fact,  the  center  of  opposition  and  the  chief  cause  of 
the  failure  of  the  Galilean  ministry  was  Jerusalem. 
But  Jesus  had  stayed  away  a  full  year;  and  probably 
the  rulers  thought  He  did  not  dare  to  venture  within 
their  jurisdiction.  Now  He  came  up  for  Pentecost, 
and  deliberately  challenged  their  judgment  by  healing 
the  best-known,  most  helpless  cripple  in  the  city,  one 
whose  thirty-eight  years  of  persistent  waiting  at  the 
pool  of  Bethesda  had  made  him  the  talk  and  almost  the 
jest  of  the  populace.  The  rulers  could  not  deny  the 
miracle ;  and  it  was  a  sign,  such  as  the  Messiah  might 
properly  give,  though  not  such  as  they  had  in  mind 
when  they  put  the  question  of  John  2  :  18.  The  miracle, 
however,  was  performed  in  such  a  way, — on  the  Sab- 
bath and  with  the  command lo_carry_^.bur3£n, — as  to 
feTng~Tquarery  before  them  the  impossibility  of  accept- 
ing Jesus  as  the  Messiah  while  still  retaining  their  own 
proud  authority  as  religious  guides.  (Weiss  thinks 
that  the  question  about  His  authority  (Mark  11 :28) 
was  asked  now.)     The  decision  was  easily  made, — in 


198  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

fact,  it  had  been  made  already;  and  Jesus'  claim  that 
in  His  disregard  of  the  Sabbath  laws  He  had  acted  as 
the  Son  of  the  Heavenly  Father,  increased  the  horror 
with  which  they  regarded  Him  (5  :  16-17).  Either  this 
son  of  Beelzebub  must  be  put  to  death,  or  the  Pharisees 
must  perish;  henceforth  it  was  a  fight  to  the  finish. 

Possibly  at  this  time  Jesus  was  brought  before  the 
Sanhedrin.  His  speech  (5  :  19  f.)  was  certainly  not  to 
the  multitude  but  to  some  small  body,  seemingly  official 
(cf.  vs.  33,  39).  It  is  a  carefully  argued  defence  of 
His  claims,  setting  forth  what  His  Sonship  really  is, 
the  witnesses  to  it,  and  the  cause  of  the  present  unbe- 
lief. The  Sanhedrin,  however,  could  take  no  official 
action  against  Him  because  the  Sadducees  (who 
formed  a  majority)  and  some  of  the  Pharisees  (e.g., 
Nicodemus)  were  not  ready  to  do  so.  Still  His  life 
was  no  longer  safe  in  Judea  (7:  i).  The  knife  of  an 
assassin,  wielded  through  the  instigation  and  under  the 
protection  of  the  Pharisees,  might  end  it  if  He  were 
for  a  moment  off  His  guard. 

Concerning  this  miracle  Ellicott  says :  "  This  is  the 
turning  point  in  the  gospel  history.  Up  to  this  time 
the  preaching  of  our  Lord  in  Jerusalem  and  in  Judea 
had  met  with  a  certain  degree  of  toleration,  and  in 
many  cases  even  of  acceptance;  but  after  this  all  be- 
comes changed.  Henceforth  the  city  of  David  is  no 
meet  or  safe  abode  for  the  Son  of  David ;  the  earthly 
house  of  His  Heavenly  Father  is  no  longer  a  secure  hall 
of  audience  for  the  preaching  of  the  Eternal  Son." 
In  a  very  real  sense,  then,  it  was  the  closing  act  of  the 
Judean  ministry;  and  as  the  demand  throughout  that 
ministry  had  been  for  a  sign,  it  was  a  final  test  of  the 
rulers  by  granting  that  demand  in  such  a  way  as  to 
prove  that  their  desire  for  a  sign  was  insincere.    What 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  199 

they  lacked  was  not  proof  of  His  Messiahship,  but 
willingness  to  accept  it. 

5.    Peter's  Great  Confession. 

We  have  already  seen  reasons  why  Jesus  could 
not  begin  His  work  in  Galilee  by  proclaiming  openly, 
or  even  to  His  intimate  disciples,  that  He  was  the 
Messiah.  Still  it  was  impossible  for  Him  to  take  up 
the  Messianic  work  without  in  some  measure  reveal- 
ing Himself :  "  He  could  not  be  hid."  As  a  teacher  He 
spoke  with  the  certainty  and  independence  of  one  who 
had  intimate  knowledge  of  things  divine,  and  who 
could  calmly  set  aside  the  highest  human  teachings. 
As  a  lawgiver  He  not  only  abrogated  legislation  which 
all  His  nation  considered  inspired,  but  treated  His 
hearers  as  subjects  who  were  in  duty  bound  to  obey 
the  laws  which  He  by  His  own  authority  enacted. 
As  a  leader  He  demanded  from  his  followers  complete 
personal  surrender  and  implicit  obedience,  such  as  no 
human  being  has  a  right  to  demand.  And  as  a  miracle- 
worker  He  both  revealed  the  character  of  the  Mes- 
sianic kingdom,  and  acted  with  the  calm  assurance  pos- 
sible only  to  one  who,  having  in  His  control  all  the 
powers  of  nature,  knows  that  He  has  simply  to  will  in 
order  to  produce  a  desired  eflfect. 

The  Twelve  had  been  with  Him  through  the  Gali- 
lean ministry ;  and  it  would  seem,  at  first  thought,  that 
such  a  revelation  ought  to  have  made  them  recognize 
who  their  Master  was,  long  before  that  ministry  ended. 
Its  failure  to  do  so  is  understood  when  we  realize  what 
a  transformation  of  their  Messianic  ideals  was  re- 
quired. They  had  begun,  some  of  them  from  the  hour 
when  John  the  Baptist  pointed  Him  out,  by  accepting 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah  of  popular  expectation.     That 


SOO  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

idea  had  been  abandoned  in  the  Galilean  days,  though 
not  without  a  sense  of  disappointment.  Simon  the 
Zealot,  for  example,  must  have  been  most  reluctant  to 
give  up  the  hope  of  a  Messiah  who  would  drive  out  the 
Romans.  And  James  and  John  still  cherished  an  am- 
bition for  chief  seats  in  an  earthly  kingdom.  Though 
personal  love  and  trust  had  held  them  steadfast  when 
the  multitude  deserted  Him,  it  was  evident  their  sym- 
pathies were  with  the  crowd  who  clamored  for  a  bread- 
king.  They  must  not  be  left  in  this  condition.  Since 
the  church  was  to  be  built  upon  them,  they  must  be 
hewn  into  true  foundation  stones. 

During  the  crowded  days  of  the  Galilean  ministry 
there  had  been  scanty  opportunity  to  give  the  Twelve 
special  instruction.  Occasionally  a  parable  that  puzzled 
the  multitude  could  be  privately  explained,  or  a  lesson 
too  deep  for  a  general  audience  could  be  taught  to 
them;  but  they  needed  more  thorough  and  systematic 
tuition  before  they  could  wholly  lay  aside  their  old 
ideas,  and  grasp  the  new  and  higher  ones  which  Jesus 
set  before  them.  That  tuition  seems  to  have  been 
mainly  the  revelation  of  Himself  to  them  by  continu- 
ous and  closest  companionship.  He  did  not  tell  them 
what  He  claimed  to  be;  He  simply  let  them  see  what 
He  was.  Never  had  men  better  opportunity  to  know  a 
comrade  than  they  had  to  know  Jesus.  And  what  was 
the  result?  Contrary  to  the  established  rule  that  fa- 
miliarity breeds  contempt,  the  more  intimately  they 
knew  Him,  the  more  deeply  they  reverenced  Him.  As 
Bushnell  points  out,  "  The  most  conspicuous  matter  in 
the  history  of  Jesus  is  that  what  holds  true  in  our  ex- 
perience of  men  is  inverted  in  Him.  He  grows  more 
sacred,  peculiar,  wonderful,  divine,  as  acquaintance 
reveals  Him.    And  exactly  this  appears  in  the  history 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  201 

without  any  token  of  art,  or  even  apparent  conscious- 
ness that  it  does  appear, — appears  because  it  is  true. 
Probably  no  one  of  the  evangelists  ever  so  much  as 
noticed  this  remarkable  inversion  of  what  holds  good 
respecting  men,  in  the  life  and  character  of  Jesus." 

The  first  fruit  of  these  months  of  special  teaching 
was  evident  when  Jesus  put  the  testing  question,  "  Who 
say  ye  that  I  am?  ",  and  Peter  acting  as  the  spokesman 
of  the  Twelve  replied,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ "  (Mark 
8:29).  The  exclamation  of  joy  with  which  Jesus 
received  this  confession  of  faith  shows  that  it  marked 
an  important  stage  in  the  spiritual  development  of  the 
apostles.  Such  a  recognition  of  His  Messiahship  at  a 
time  when  others  at  the  highest  regarded  Jesus  as  sim- 
ply a  great  prophet,  was  most  significant;  it  arose 
through  no  promptings  of  ambition  or  racial  pride  or 
selfishness ;  it  was  divinely  begotten.  "  Blessed  art 
thou,  Simon  Barjonah,  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not 
revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven"  (Matt.  16:  17).  And  one  who  had  entered 
so  far  into  the  secrets  of  the  kingdom  as  to  recognize 
its  king  could  hereafter  be  entrusted  with  its  keys. 
So  the  famous  promise, — put  to  strange  uses  centuries 
afterwards, — was  made  to  Peter,  and  a  few  weeks  later 
to  the  Twelve  collectively  (Matt.  16:  19;  18:  18).  But 
there  was  one  of  the  number  who  had  remained  unre- 
sponsive to  all  the  teachings  and  influence  of  Jesus. 
If  we  take  John  6 :  66-71  to  be  a  brief  summary  of  the 
period  we  are  now  studying,  we  find  in  it  not  only 
Peter's  confession,  given  in  somewhat  different  form 
though  with  the  same  significance,  but  also  Christ's 
judgment  of  Judas,  "  Did  I  not  choose  you,  the 
Twelve ;  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil  ?  "  Just  what 
these  words  signify  can  better  be  discussed  when  the 


202  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

whole  career  of  Judas  is  before  us.     Enough  now  to 
contrast  them  with  the  words  of  Peter. 

When  the  disciples  thus  showed  that  they  were  grasp- 
ing the  correct  conception  of  their  Messiah,  Jesus  was 
encouraged  to  teach  them  the  culmination  of  His  pres- 
ent Messianic  work,  "  From  that  time  began  Jesus  to 
show  unto  his  disciples  how  that  he  must  go  unto 
Jerusalem,  and  suffer  many  things  of  the  elders  and 
chief  priests  and  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  the  third 
day  be  raised  up  "  (Matt.  16:21).  He  could  not  have 
taught  them  this  earlier;  and  even  now  it  was  so 
strangely  contradictory  to  all  their  Messianic  ideas  they 
could  not  grasp  it.  Peter,  who  was  foremost  in 
spiritual  knowledge,  was  also  firfet  to  cry  out  in  lov- 
ing dismay  and  horror,  "  Mercy  on  thee.  Lord :  this 
shall  never  be  unto  thee!  "  (Matt.  16:  22).  Thus  the 
cross  at  its  very  first  presentation  becomes  a  stumbling 
block  to  the  disciples;  and  their  distress  over  it  be- 
comes in  turn  a  stumbling  block  to  the  Master.  The 
old  temptation  to  find  another,  less  painful  path  pre- 
sents itself,  and  has  again  to  be  thrust  away  with  "  Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan." 

6.    The  Transfiguration. 

One  week  after  the  first  revelation  of  the  cross  came 
the  transfiguration  (Mark  9:2).  In  no  other  passage, 
except  his  account  of  passion  week,  does  Mark  state 
the  exact  interval  between  two  incidents.  He  does  so 
now  because  the  two  are  parts  of  one  situation.  Jesus 
was  heavy-hearted  from  the  inability  of  His  disciples 
to  grasp  the  lesson  of  the  cross,  and  perhaps,  also,  from 
the  increasing  nearness  of  the  hour  of  agony;  He 
needed  cheer  and  increase  of  strength  through  com- 
munion with  His  Father.     The  disciples  were  stag- 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  203 

gered  by  the  thought  of  a  murdered  Messiah;  they 
needed  to  be  reassured  by  the  vision  of  a  transfigured 
Messiah.  The  "  high  mountain  "  on  which  the  trans- 
figuration took  place  was  probably  a  shoulder  of  Mt. 
Hermon,  and  the  time  seems  to  have  been  night.  Jesus 
was  accustomed  to  spend  nights  alone  in  prayer;  but 
now.  as  later  on  at  Gethsemane,  He  took  Peter,  James 
and  John  to  be  with  Him  as  He  prayed.  There  seems 
to  have  been  no  deliberate  intention  of  being  trans- 
figured before  them,  but  rather  the  wish  to  admit 
them  into  His  innermost  life,  and  make  them  realize 
that  His  words  about  His  death  were  the  expression, 
not  of  a  passing  moment  of  despondency,  but  of  a 
great  purpose  which  He  shared  with  God  in  prayer. 
If  they  could  learn  to  join  with  Him  in  that  prayer, 
the  cross  might  cease  to  be  a  stumbling  block,  and  be- 
come a  foundation  of  faith. 

The  experience  which  followed  falls  into  the  same 
class  with  the  baptism,  the  temptation  and  Gethsemane. 
What  it  was  for  Jesus  himself, — what  message  of 
cheer,  what  strength  for  the  coming  days.  He  received 
and  how  these  came, — we  are  not  told.  What  the 
three  apostles  saw  and  heard  was  doubtless  subjec- 
tive,— in  Matthew's  account  Jesus  plainly  calls  it  "  the 
vision"  (17:9);  no  wandering  shepherd,  if  he  had 
passed  at  that  hour,  would  have  beheld  anything  more 
than  four  men  in  prayer  and  meditation.  But  it  was 
a  real  and  deep  experience.  For  one  brief  hour  the 
veil  which  hid  their  Lord  was  lifted,  and  they  were 
"  eye-witnesses  of  his  majesty  "  (II  Peter  i :  10).  It 
was  no  longer  the  Galilean  carpenter, — despised,  slan- 
dered, hated, — who  stood  before  them  but  a  majestic 
being  from  whose  whole  person  streamed  forth  a  daz- 
zling white  light.    And  with  Him  they  saw  two  other 


204.  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

figures  whom  intuitively  they  knew  to  be  Moses  and 
Elijah;  and  they  heard  these  talking  with  Jesus  about 
"  his  exodus  which  he  was  about  to  accomplish  at 
Jerusalem  "  (Luke  9 :  31 ), — the  very  event  He  had  so 
recently  foretold,  and  they  had  refused  to  accept.  The 
lesson  for  them  in  that  conversation, — or  at  least  in 
the  vision  of  the  two  great  representatives  of  the  law 
and  the  prophets  conversing  on  that  subject, — was  the 
same  as  that  which  Jesus  in  the  walk  to  Emmaus 
taught,  when  "beginning  from  Moses  and  from  all 
the  prophets  he  interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  scrip- 
tures the  things  concerning  himself";  the  lesson, 
namely,  that  the  Messiah,  foreshadowed  in  the  law 
and  foretold  by  the  prophets,  was  one  who  through 
suffering  must  enter  into  his  glory  (Luke  24:  25-27). 
The  knowledge  that  the  death  of  the  Messiah  was  pre- 
dicted by  the  great  teachers  of  old  would  cast  no  light 
upon  the  mystery  of  his  death, — for  that  the  disciples 
must  wait  until  after  the  resurrection,  and  meanwhile 
tell  no  man  what  they  had  seen  (Mark  9:9);  but  it 
might  help  them  to  realize  the  necessity  of  His  death. 
Peter  was  right  when  he  said,  "  Rabbi,  it  is  good  for 
us  to  be  here  ";  even  though  his  proposition  to  prolong 
the  experience  by  building  lodging-booths  for  the 
heavenly  guests  of  a  vision  was  absurd.  (Possibly  the 
nearness  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  made  him  think 
of  passing  the  sacred  days  here  on  the  mount.)  Then 
sudden  fear  chilled  their  desire  to  tarry ;  for  they  were 
overshadowed  by  a  bright  cloud, — according  to  all 
Jewish  thought,  the  token  of  the  presence  of  Jehovah ; 
and  out  of  the  cloud  came  a  voice,  "  This  is  my  beloved 
Son,  hear  ye  him."  The  words  were  like  those  uttered 
at  the  baptism ;  they  now  were  meant  to  strengthen  the 
faith  of  the  disciples  in  Jesus  as  their  teacher  even 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  2'^5 

though  He  was  teaching  them  the  mysterious  truth  that 
a  Messiah  must  die. 

It  was  a  wonderful  experience, — indeed,  too  wonder- 
ful for  them  to  grasp  at  present.  Their  state  of  mind 
as  they  came  down  from  the  mountain  reveals  this. 
They  dared  not  ask  Jesus  what  the  rising  again  from 
the  dead  should  mean,  when  He  spoke  of  it  (Matt. 
9:10),  for  fear  of  calling  forth  another  rebuke  as 
sharp  and  mysterious  as  that  which  Peter  had  re- 
ceived the  week  before.  The  vision  of  Elijah  reminded 
them  of  the  prophecy  that  he  must  come  before  the 
Messiah,  and  they  ventured  to  ask  why  it  had  not  been 
fulfilled.  Possibly  they  had  not  been  with  the  multi- 
tude to  whom  Jesus  declared  that  John  the  Baptist 
was  Elijah,  or  else  had  failed  to  grasp  the  statement 
which  seems  to  have  been  in  esoteric  form  (Matt.  11 : 
14  f.).  This  time  they  understood  that  John  the 
Baptist  was  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy;  but  John 
was  dead,  which  seemed  to  indicate  that  Elijah  had 
failed  in  his  mission,  and  that  the  Messiah  also  was 
going  to  fail.  What,  then,  could  they  conclude  about 
the  transfiguration?  The  farther  away  it  became,  the 
more  of  a  mystery  it  seemed;  and  when  months  later 
the  hour  arrived  in  which  they  most  needed  its  mes- 
sage, they  had  ceased  to  bear  it  in  mind. 

7.   The  Lessons  of  the  Cross. 

As  soon  as  the  Twelve  had  grasped  the  fact  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  He  began  to  teach  them  that 
He  must  be  rejected  by  the  Sanhedrin  and  be  killed 
and  after  three  days  rise  again.  According  to  Mark, 
"he  spake  the  saying  openly"  (8:31),  and  later  on 
gave  further  details, — the  betrayal  (9:31),  the  de- 
livery to  the  Gentiles,   the  mockery  and  scourging 


206  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST, 

(lo:  34).  Matthew  adds  to  these  the  crucifixion  (20: 
tq), — a  form  of  death  that  might  be  expected  if 
Romans  pronounced  the  sentence.  Nevertheless^  there 
is  no  indication  that  the  disciples  were  in  any  way 
helped  by  His  predictions,  when  the  hour  of  fulfill- 
ment did  arrive.  They  were  overwhelmed  by  His 
arrest  and  death,  and  wholly  without  hope  of  His 
resurrection,  exactly  as  if  He  never  had  foretold  these 
events.  No  emphasis  of  the  dullness  and  unbelief  of 
the  Twelve  can  account  for  their  total  failure  to  recall 
His  words  at  the  hour  when  most  naturally  they  would 
remember  them;  it  must  be  that  the  lessons  of  the 
cross  were  much  more  ambiguous  than  Mark  repre- 
sents. They  are  preserved  for  us  not  literally  but 
with  the  interpretation  which  the  events  themselves 
brought;  so  there  is  no  obscurity.  Yet  from  their 
present  form  we  conclude  that  Jesus  uniformly  used 
the  Son  of  Man  instead  of  the  first  personal  pronoun 
in  them,  which  would  make  the  disciples  question 
whether  He  was  speaking  about  Himself  or  some  other 
person;  and  from  our  knowledge  of  the  apocalyptical 
form  in  which  He  put  His  teachings  about  the  future 
coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  we  infer  that  He  put  His 
teachings  about  the  future  sufferings  of  the  Son  of 
Man  in  the  same  obscure  form.  When  He  gave  the 
first  of  His  lessons  about  the  cross,  Peter  understood 
that  He  was  talking  about  His  own  death,  and  natu- 
rally cried  out  in  horror  at  the  thought ;  but  the  sharp 
rebuke  this  brought  (Mark  8:  33)  must  have  made  the 
disciples  suppose  that  Peter  had  misunderstood  Him 
in  a  way  that  merited  censure.  Henceforth,  when- 
ever He  spoke  about  the  death  or  resurrection  of  the 
Son  of  Man,  they  listened  in  silence,  not  comprehend- 
ing but  afraid  to  ask  Him  His  meaning  (Mark  9:  10, 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  207 

32;  Luke  18:  34).  The  command,  given  to  the  three 
disciples  as  they  came  down  from  the  mount  of  trans- 
figuration, that  they  should  tell  the  vision  to  no  man 
(Mark  9:9-10),  made  the  lesson  of  that  vision  seem 
something  apart  from  what  He  was  openly  telling  the 
Twelve;  so  they  were  unable  to  use  it  as  the  key  to 
His  other  words.  Doubtless  the  whole  story  of  future 
sufferings  was  supposed  to  be  something  like  a  parable 
whose  explanation  had  not  been  given  them ;  and  they 
dismissed  it  as  beyond  their  comprehension. 

The  question  why  Jesus  should  teach  thus  obscurely 
about  His  passion  is  a  difficult  one.  Unless  we  refuse 
to  believe  that  He  had  a  clear  knowledge  of  the  future, 
we  must  agree  that,  had  He  wished  to  do  it,  He  might 
have  made  His  statements  so  plain  that  the  disciples 
could  not  fail  to  understand  them  and,  when  the  time 
of  His  death  came,  to  recall  them.  The  author  of  the 
first  Gospel  is  sure  that  somebody  before  the  resurrec- 
tion must  have  remembered  that  Jesus  had  said,  "  After 
three  days  I  rise  again"  (Matt.  27:63);  but  he  can 
assign  such  remembrance  only  to  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees  (27:62  f.).  The  wisdom  of  veiling  the 
future  from  the  disciples  becomes  evident  when  we  con- 
sider how  minimized  their  spiritual  experience  in  Pas- 
sion Week  would  have  been,  had  they  clearly  foreseen 
each  of  the  great  events.  Knowledge  that  their  Mas- 
ter was  to  return  to  them  speedily,  victorious  over 
death,  would  have  taken  away  the  stress  and  test  of 
soul  which  Jesus  predicted  at  the  Last  Supper,  when 
He  said,  "  Satan  hath  by  asking  obtained  you  that  he 
may  sift  you  as  wheat"  (Luke  22:31).  Yet  for 
Jesus  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  with  Calvary  ever  in  view, 
and  give  no  hint  of  it  to  His  companions  whom  it  so 
intimately  concerned,  was,  humanly  speaking,  impos- 


208  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

sible;  the  craving  for  their  sympathy,  and  the  loving 
wish  to  help  them  in  their  trials,  which  are  so  often 
manifested  in  His  dealings  with  the  Twelve,  would 
force  some  revelation  of  that  which  filled  His  thoughts. 
And,  if  given  in  such  form  that  the  event  made  clear 
the  prediction,  this  revelation  would  be  profitable  to 
the  disciples  in  later  years,  as  helping  them  to  under- 
stand what  were  the  thoughts  and  purpose  of  their 
Master  at  a  time  when  they  followed  Him  in  igno- 
rance and  fear  (Mark  lo:  32). 

There  were  lessons  of  the  cross  that  concerned  not 
alone  His  own  future  but  that  of  all  disciples;  and 
these,  too,  Jesus  was  trying  to  teach.  "  li  any  man 
would  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself  and  take 
up  his  cross  and  follow  me"  (Mark  8:34).  This 
was  the  keynote  of  many  conversations.  Few  sayings 
of  Christ  are  more  familiar ;  and  yet  we  often  miss  its 
full  meaning  because  we  identify  self-denial  with 
\  cross-bearing.  There  was  to  be  self-denial  to  the 
uttermost;  and  repeatedly  He  warned  would-be  dis- 
ciples to  count  the  cost.  Those  who  followed  Him 
must  become  homeless,  break  all  family  ties,  hate  even 
their  own  lives.  But  all  this  was  only  preparation  for 
cross-bearing.  The  cross  is  the  symbol  of  sacrificial 
service,  of  burdens  borne  to  lighten  heavy-laden  shoul- 
ders, of  redemptive  suffering  for  the  sins  of  others. 
The  imitation  of  Christ,  that  goes  no  further  than 
self-denial,  fails  to  reach  the  cross,  and  has  no  power 
to  bring  the  world  to  Him. 

From  the  time  when  Jesus  began  to  teach  the  les- 
sons of  the  cross  we  are  conscious  of  something  even 
more  serious  than  a  failure  of  the  Twelve  to  under- 
stand. There  is  a  lack  of  sympathy  on  their  part, 
not  great  enough  to  destroy  their  love  and  loyalty, 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  209 

but  sufficient  to  make  them  unresponsive  and  some- 
times antagonistic.  Instead  of  accepting  His  lesson  of 
self-denial,  they  dispute  who  is  the  greatest  (Mark  9: 
34)  ;  instead  of  forgiving  their  enemies,  they  want 
to  call  down  fire  upon  a  Samaritan  village  that  refuses 
them  hospitality  (Luke  9:54);  instead  of  extending 
generous  welcome  to  all  who  recognize  their  Master, 
they  nourish  a  spirit  of  exclusiveness  (Mark  9:  38)  ; 
and  the  question  of  reward  for  following  Him  is 
bluntly  proposed  (Matt.  19  :  27).  Truly  the  path  was 
made  lonely  and  needlessly  hard  for  Jesus  by  the  very 
men  whom  He  had  chosen  to  be  His  comrades.  It  is 
pleasant  to  believe  that  the  natural  yearning  of  His 
heart  for  human  sympathy  and  comprehension  found 
at  least  one  cheering  response.  In  the  home  at  Bethany 
Mary  was  ready  to  hear  His  word  with  the  quick  in- 
tuition of  love  (Luke  10:39);  and  that  she  accepted 
the  lesson  of  the  cross  and  understood  it  may  be 
inferred  from  her  act  and  Jesus'  words  when  He  came 
to  Bethany  on  His  way  to  the  last  Passover  (Mark 
14:  3  f.).  The  alabaster  cruse  of  costly  spikenard 
was  her  token  of  comprehension  and  loyal  co- 
operation. 

8.    The  Feast  of  the  Tabernacles. 

When  the  summer  months  were  ended,  Jesus  was 
back  once  more  in  Capernaum;  but  His  presence  no 
longer  drew  a  crowd.  In  fact,  He  was  evidently 
seeking  to  remain  hidden  (Mark  9 :  30).  His  brethren 
strongly  disapproved  of  this,  and  urged  Him  to  go  up 
openly  to  the  autumn  feast  of  Tabernacles  which  was 
now  at  hand  (John  y:2i.)  Why  they  did  this  if, 
as  John  points  out,  they  did  not  believe  on  Him,  it  is 
hard  to  say.    They  could  not  have  wished  to  compass 


210  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

His  death ;  but  possibly  they  thought  that  this  appear- 
ance at  Jerusalem  would  be  a  decisive  one;  and  their 
private  opinion  was  that  it  would  end  His  public  career, 
which  already  seemed  at  the  point  of  failure,  and 
would  thus  cause  Him  to  resume  the  old  life  of  a  quiet 
citizen  instead  of  the  exhausting  and,  to  their  minds, 
almost  insane  course  He  had  been  following  in  recent 
months.  In  response  He  said  squarely,  "  I  go  not  up 
to  this  feast"  (7:8), — a  statement  which  seemed  to 
later  copyists  so  near  a  falsehood  that  they  changed 
the  word  "  not,"  by  a  slight  alteration,  into  "  not  yet." 
Further  reflection  on  the  situation  caused  Him  to 
recall  His  decision;  He  might  profitably  go  up  to  the 
feast,  though  not  in  such  open  manner  as  His  brethren 
suggested, — the  time  for  the  triumphal  entry  had  not 
yet  come.  Accordingly,  "  when  his  brethren  were 
gone  up  unto  the  feast,  then  went  he  also  up,  not 
publicly,  but  as  it  were  in  secret  (7:  10).  There  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  He  took  the  disciples  with 
Him;  the  statement  that  He  went  secretly  is  opposed 
to  it,  and  the  hostility  He  was  to  encounter  would  not 
be  beneficial  to  them. 

At  Jerusalem  the  whole  atmosphere  reeked  with 
hostility.  The  rulers  were  watching  for  His  appear- 
ance (7 :  11),  aroused  to  this  because  He  had  come  to 
the  previous  feast;  and  it  was  understood  that  they 
were  plotting  His  death  (7 :  25).  The  people  were  dis- 
cussing His  claims,  and  only  a  portion  (probably  Gali- 
lean pilgrims)  dared  speak  even  secretly  in  His  favor 
(7 :  13).  It  was  generally  thought  that  He  would  not 
come  to  the  feast,  the  danger  was  so  great ;  and  when 
He  appeared,  the  people  were  astonished,  and  won- 
dered if  the  rulers  had  changed  their  attitude. 

The  feast  lasted  seven  or  eight  days;  Jesus  arrived 


THE  BORDER  MINISTRY  211 

in  the  midst  of  it,  and  stayed  until  its  close.  Prob- 
ably He  did  not  stay  longer;  there  was  little  reason 
why  He  should,  and  the  danger  was  too  great.  Going 
straight  into  the  temple.  He  began  to  teach.  The  bold- 
ness of  the  act  at  first  paralyzed  His  enemies;  and 
when  they  recovered  and  sought  to  arrest  Him,  the 
favor  of  a  part  of  the  multitude  protected  Him.  The 
scenes  that  followed  reveal  a  sublimity  of  fearlessness 
and  strength,  the  record  of  which,  as  Thomas  Hughes 
says,  "  has  done  more  to  make  men  courageous  and 
truly  manly  than  all  the  stirring  accounts  of  bold 
deeds  which  ever  were  written  elsewhere."  Each  day 
Jesus  was  in  the  temple,  teaching  the  people  who 
wavered  between  favor  and  opposition,  uttering  prom- 
ises, warnings,  denunciations,  making  clearer  revela- 
tions of  His  superhuman  character,  and  defying  the 
Jewish  rulers  who  were  almost  beside  themselves  with 
helpless  rage.  They  sent  the  temple  guard  to  arrest 
Him,  and  it  returned  empty-handed  with  the  report, 
"  Never  man  so  spake."  They  turned  in  fury  upon 
Nicodemus  when  he  made  the  fair-minded  suggestion 
that  they  should  not  condemn  a  man  unheard.  They 
agreed  that  whoever  should  confess  that  this  Nazarene 
was  the  Christ  should  be  cast  out  of  the  synagogue. 
They  even  took  up  stones  to  hurl  at  Him  because  His 
claims  seemed  blasphemous.  In  short,  they  were  like  a 
pack  of  wolves,  wild  with  passion,  thirsting  for  blood, 
yet  kept  back  from  their  victim  by  a  barrier  they 
could  not  cross.  No  man  laid  hands  on  Him;  He 
remained  in  Jerusalem  until  the  feast  was  ended, 
uttered  the  words  that  were  in  His  heart,  and  then, 
having  fulfilled  the  purpose  of  His  coming,  went  back 
once  more  to  His  waiting  disciples  in  Galilee. 
At  this  visit  no  miracle  was  performed;  the  atmos- 


212  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

phere  was  not  suitable  for  one.  But  Jesus  took  the 
ceremony  of  bringing  water  in  a  golden  pitcher  from 
Siloam  to  the  temple,  which  was  part  of  each  day's  cele- 
bration except  the  last,  as  the  text  of  His  sermon  on 
that  last  day,  "  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto 
me  and  drink"  (7:37). 


XIV 
JESUS  THE  MESSIAH 

WE  have  already  noticed  that  while  the  early  part 
of  Jesus'  ministry  was  full  of  teachings  con- 
cerning the  kingdom  of  God,  from  the  time  when  He 
withdrew  from  Galilee  to  begin  the  private  training 
of  the  Twelve  His  teaching  centered  upon  "  the  things 
concerning  himself."  There  was  great  need  of  such 
teaching;  for  the  various  opinions  concerning  Him 
were  more  than  those  the  disciples  stated  in  their 
answer  to  His,  "  Who  do  men  say  that  I  am?  "  (Mark 
8:27f.),  and  the  belief  of  the  disciples  themselves, 
"  Thou  art  the  Christ,"  might  be  held  with  widely 
different  conceptions  of  the  Messiah.  We  shall  be 
helped  in  understanding  the  whole  ministry  of  Jesus, 
if  we  pause  at  this  point  to  consider  briefly  both  what 
the  people  thought  about  Him  and  what  He  taught 
about  Himself.  And  in  considering  the  latter  we  must 
bear  in  mind  the  same  presuppositions  as  when  study- 
ing what  He  taught  about  the  kingdom  of  God,  viz. : 
that  he  had  to  suit  His  teachings  to  His  audience ;  that 
He  may  have  been  misunderstood  and  wrongly  re- 
ported ;  that  his  ideas  were  in  harmony  with  the  highest 
in  the  Old  Testament;  and  that  the  Christian  cen- 
turies have  made  the  meaning  of  His  words  more 
evident. 

In  every  other  biography  we  have  to  distinguish  not 
only  between  a  man's  estimate  of  himself  and  his 

213 


214.  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

associates'  estimate  of  him,  but  also  between  both  of 
these  and  his  true  character.  In  the  case  of  Jesus  we 
can  take  His  statement  of  what  He  was  as  absolutely 
correct.  With  His  marvellous  knowledge  of  other  men 
He  had,  also,  full  knowledge  of  Himself.  Of  course, 
this  must  be  denied  by  those  who  hold  that  He  changed 
His  opinion  several  times,  deeming  Himself  at  first 
to  be  merely  a  disciple  of  John  the  Baptist,  next  to  be 
a  prophetic  teacher,  and  finally  to  be  the  Messiah. 
Such  change  of  mind  is  called  the  development  of  the. 
Messianic  consciousnessj  but  it  shows  a  deficiency  in 
self-knowledge  which  does  not  inspire  confidence  in 
even  the  final  opinion.  Indeed,  some  think  that  Jesus._ 
died  on  the  cross  with  a  cry  of  dismayat  the  rude^ 
awakening  from  His  delusion  that  He  was  theMessiah. 
fn  the  opinion  of  the  writer,  the  theory  that  there  can 
be  traced  through  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  a  gradual 
development  of  Messianic  consciousness  has  no  foun- 
dation in  fact,  and  arises  from  confusing  His  progres- 
sive self-revelation  to  the  disciples,  as  they  were  able 
to  receive  it,  with  His  actual  self-knowledge.  The 
things  concerning  Himself  were  the  deepest,  hardest 
lessons  He  had  to  impart;  and  He  could  proceed  no 
faster  in  His  teaching  than  His  disciples  were  ready 
to  receive ;  but  this  necessary  limitation  in  his  statement 
of  what  He  was  does  not  involve  or  imply  a  corre- 
sponding limitation  in  His  own  knowledge. 

The  theme  of  this  chapter  may  be  most  simply 
treated  by  considering  the  significance  of  some  of  the 
titles  that  others  gave  Jesus  and  of  those  that  He  Him- 
self assumed. 

1.   The  Prophet  from  Nazareth. 

A  prophet,  in  the  Biblical  sense  of  the  word,  is  a 


JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  215 

man  who  speaks  for  God,  uttering  a  message  divinely 
given.  He  may  speak  about  the  future;  but  his  mis- 
sion is  to  offer  warning,  counsel  or  cheer  in  the  pres- 
ent. He  is  God's  spokesman,  and  his  words  are  with 
divine  authority.  The  uniqueness  of  Israel's  history 
arises  from  the  long  line  of  such  men  who  resolutely 
strove  to  lead  the  nation  forward  in  the  path  of  Je- 
hovah's purposes. 

When  John  the  Baptist  came  forward,  a  prophet 
had  long  been  lacking,  and  the  lack  was  sorely  felt. 
The  people  counted  him  a  prophet  (Matt.  14:  5),  and 
Jesus  endorsed  their  opinion  (Matt.  11:9),  though  He 
added  that  John  was  much  more  than  a  prophet.  And 
of  Jesus  Himself  in  His  Galilean  ministry  men  said, 
"  A  great  prophet  has  arisen  among  us,  and  God  has 
visited  his  people"  (Luke  7:16),  Some  went  still 
farther,  and  identified  him  with  one  of  the  old 
prophets,  Elijah  or  Jeremiah,  or  with  the  prophet 
whom  Moses  foretold  (Matt.  16:  14;  John  6:  14;  7: 
40).  Even  at  the  triumphal  entry  the  multitude  said, 
"  This  is  the  prophet,  Jesus  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee  " 
(Matt.  21  :ii).  It  was  the  most  natural  explanation 
both  of  the  authority  with  which  He  taught  (Mark  i : 
22)  and  of  the  miracles  He  wrought  (Luke  7:  16); 
He  was,  as  the  two  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus 
said,  "a  prophet  mighty  in  deed  and  word"  (Luke 
24:19). 

Jesus  never  assumed  the  title.  Once  at  Nazareth 
He  applied  to  Himself  the  proverb,  "  A  prophet  is  not 
without  honor  save  in  his  own  country"  (Mark  6: 
4) ;  and  once,  speaking  of  His  journey  to  death,  He 
said  with  severest  sarcasm,  "  It  cannot  be  that  a 
prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem"  (Luke  13:33). 
But  in  the  parable  of  the  wicked  husbandman  (Mark 


Jr 


216  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

1 2 :  I  ff. ) ,  in  which  the  servants  sent  to  receive  the 
fruits  are  the  prophets,  He  assigns  Himself  the  far 
higher  position  of  the  only  and  beloved  son  of  the  lord 
of  the  vineyard.  It  is  the  same  distinction  that  is 
made  in  His  two  statements,  "  He  that  receiveth  a 
prophet  in  the  name  of  a  prophet  shall  receive  a 
prophet's  reward "  and  "  He  that  receiveth  me  re- 
ceiveth him  that  sent  me  "  (Matt.  lo:  41,  40).  Those 
who,  like  Nicodemus,  regard  Jesus  as  simply  a  teacher 
with  a  divine  commission,  fail  to  grasp  this  distinction. 
It  is  true  that  He  taught  with  authority,  and  was 
called  rabbi  by  His  disciples ;  but  He  claimed  for  Him- 
self a  higher  mission  than  simply  to  proclaim  a  message 
from  God ;  and  the  knowledge  of  the  Father  which  He 
possessed  was  that  of  a  son  and  not  of  a  prophet 
(Luke  10:  22). 

2.    Son  of  David  and  King  of  Israel. 

The  long  occupancy  of  the  Jewish  throne  by  the 
dynasty  of  David,  and  the  promises  of  the  prophets  that 
this  occupancy  should  continue  forever,  made  the  two 
terms,  son  of  David  and  king  of  Israel,  practically 
identical.  True,  the  Maccabean  kings  had  not  been 
descendants  of  David;  but  the  Pharisees  looked  back 
upon  them  as  impious  usurpers  whose  final  overthrow 
was  a  merited  punishment  by  Jehovah.  Now  that  the 
throne  stood  empty  many  expected  a  son  of  David 
would  one  day  occupy  it.  The  story  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus  reflects  this  expectation ;  but  the  clearest  expres- 
sion of  it  is  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  which  were 
composed  70-40  B.C.,  and  were  the  highest  thought  of 
the  Pharisees.  E.g.,  "  Thou,  O  Lord,  didst  choose 
David  to  be  king  over  Israel,  and  swaredst  to  him, 
touching  his  seed,  that  never  should  his  kingdom  fail 


JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  217 

before  thee.  But  for  our  sins  sinners  rose  up  against 
us.  .  .  .  They  laid  waste  the  throne  of  David  in 
tumultuous  arrogance.  .  .  .  Behold,  O  Lord,  and  raise 
up  unto  them  their  king,  the  son  of  David,  at  the  time 
in  the  which  thou  seest,  O  God,  that  he  may  reign 
over  Israel,  thy  servant.  Gird  him  with  strength  that 
he  may  shatter  unrighteous  rulers,  and  that  he  may 
purge  Jerusalem  from  nations  that  trample  her  down 
to  destruction.  .  .  ,  He  shall  judge  peoples  and  nations 
in  the  wisdom  of  his  righteousness.  And  he  shall  have 
the  heathen  nations  to  serve  him  under  his  yoke  "  (Ps. 
17:  Charles'  translation). 

In  Galilee  the  desire  for  a  restoration  of  David's 
throne  seems  to  have  been  faint;  probably  the  people 
were  satisfied  with  the  rule  of  Herod  Antipas,  and 
did  not  relish  the  thought  of  becoming  tributary  to 
Judea.  Accordingly  the  Galileans  had  little  to  say 
about  Jesus  as  the  son  of  David  (Matt.  9:  27  f.  seems 
a  duplicate  of  2o:29f.,  and  12:23  is  peculiar  to 
Matthew),  and  when  they  would  crown  Him  king  it 
was  on  the  ground  that  He  was  "  the  prophet  that 
Cometh  into  the  world  "  (John  6:  14).  It  was  during 
the  closing  months  of  His  life,  when  He  was  teaching 
in  Peraea,  that  the  cry  for  a  political  kingdom  was 
raised.  So  we  find  that  when  Jesus  came  up  to  Jeru- 
salem for  the  last  time,  He  was  hailed  repeatedly  as 
son  of  David  (Mark  io:47f.;  Matt.  21:9,  15)  and 
His  possible  kingship  was  discussed  by  friend  and 
foe.  The  charge  which  forced  Pilate  to  condemn  Him 
was  that  He  proclaimed  Himself  a  king  (Luke  23:  2; 
John  19:12);  and  over  His  cross  in  mockery  was 
written,  "  The  king  of  the  Jews." 

Jesus  accepted  both  titles,  the  king  of  the  Jews  and 
the  son  of  David,  yet  not  with  their  popular  significa- 


'/- 


218  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

tion ;  a  political  kingdom  was  a  temptation  which  at  the 
outset  He  had  put  behind  Him.  He  told  Pilate  that  He 
was  indeed  a  king,  but  that  His  kingdom  was  not  of 
this  world  (John  i8  :  36) — a  fact  which  Pilate  already 
knew,  since  the  Pharisees  never  would  have  delivered 
over  a  king  who  set  himself  in  opposition  to  Caesar. 
And  when  He  propounded  to  the  Pharisees  the  prob- 
lem of  David's  relationship  to  the  Messiah,  as  set  forth 
in  Ps.  110:1,  asking,  "If,  then,  David  calleth  him 
Lord,  how  is  he  his  son?  "  (Matt.  22  :  45),  He  was  not 
only  accepting  the  title  which  they  demanded  that  He 
disclaim  (Matt.  21 :  15  f.),  but  also  meeting  an  objec- 
tion they  had  raised  against  His  right  to  it,  namely, 
that  He  could  not  be  the  Messiah  because  He  was  not 
of  the  seed  of  David  (John  7 :  42).  Instead  of  point- 
ing out  His  own  descent  from  David  and  His  birth 
in  Bethlehem,  He  showed  that  the  scribes  gave  a 
false  idea  of  the  Messiah  when  they  emphasized  the 
fact  that  he  was  the  son  of  David.  They  taught  that 
he  would  be  like  his  ancestor,  a  great  warrior  rul- 
ing an  earthly  kingdom  gained  by  battle;  whereas,  in 
the  Psalm  David  looks  up  to  the  Messiah  as  his  Lord 
and  one  who  instead  of  being  called  upon  to  fight  has 
from  Jehovah  the  invitation,  "  Sit  thou  on  my  right 
hand  till  I  make  thine  enemies  the  footstool  of  thy 
feet"  (Mark  12:36).  How  can  the  teaching  of  the 
scribes  be  reconciled  with  that  of  the  Psalmist? 

The  kingdom  of  which  Jesus  is  king — so  He  told 
Pilate — is  the  kingdom  of  the  truth :  "  Every  one  that 
is  of  the  truth  heareth  (i.e.,  obeyeth)  my  voice " 
(John  18:  37) ;  in  other  words,  it  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  That  kingdom,  as  we  have  noted,  is  the  rule 
of  the  Father;  but  also  it  has  been  appointed  by  the 
Father  unto  Him  (Luke  22 :  29).    "  To  the  evangelists 


JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  219 

and  the  New  Testament  generally,  the  kingdom  has  its 
king — not  simply  God  but  Jesus  whom  God  has  chosen ; 
and  the  king — He  whom  God  has  chosen — has  the 
kingdom.  There  may  be  a  question  as  to  how  pre- 
cisely the  kingship  is  to  be  understood.  That  is  a 
question  of  interpretation.  There  may  be  a  still  graver 
question  as  to  its  precise  historic  equivalent  in  the 
consciousness  of  Jesus  Himself.  But,  indubitably,  to 
all  the  New  Testament  writers,  Jesus  is  the  king;  and 
from  their  point  of  view,  it  is  practically  one  and  the 
same  thing  to  say  God  reigns  and  Jesus  reigns " 
(Muirhead). 

3.   The  Son  of  God.  Jj^ 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  relation  of  the  Jewish 
nation  to  God  was  described  as  that  of  a  son  to  a 
father  (Ex.  4:  22,  Hos.  11 :  i)  ;  and  because  the  king 
represented  the  nation,  he  in  a  special  sense  was  called 
the  son  of  God  (II  Sam.  7:14;  Ps.  89:26f.).  It 
was  natural,  therefore,  that  the  son  of  God  should 
be  used  as  a  title  for  the  Messianic  King  (Ps.  2:7). 
The  evidence  for  its  use  in  the  time  of  Jesus  is  scanty 
except  in  the  Gospels  where  it  is  abundant.  Nathanael 
says  to  Jesus,  "  Rabbi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God;  thou 
art  king  of  Israel "  (John  i :  49)  ;  Peter  confesses, 
"Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God" 
(Matt.  16:16);  the  highpriest  demands,  "Tell  us 
whether  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  "  (Matt. 
26:63):  in  all  these  instances,  son  of  God  is  used 
as  a  synonym  of  the  accompanying  term;  so  also 
in  the  taunts  when  He  hung  on  the  cross  (Matt.  27: 
40,  42),  and  in  Martha's  confession  (John  11:27). 
The  demoniacs  who  proclaimed  Him  Son  of  God  and 
the  holy  one  of  God  (Luke  4:  41;  Mark  i :  24)  were 


220  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

only  voicing  with  outspoken  fear  the  Messianic  belief 
which  lay  as  a  question  in  the  minds  of  the  bystanders. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  full  meaning  of  the 
divine  proclamation  at  the  baptism,  "  Thou  art  my 
beloved  Son,"  its  immediate  message  to  Jesus,  as  the 
temptation  shows,  was  that  He  was  the  Messiah ;  and 
the  similar  proclamation  on  the  mount  of  transfigura- 
tion bore  to  the  disciples  the  same  message.  Yet  the 
Son  of  God,  as  a  Messianic  title,  must  have  had  a  dif- 
ferent meaning  from  the  son  of  David.  It  brought 
to  the  front  the  divine  claims  to  the  throne  rather 
than  the  human ;  it  suggested  a  supernatural  being,  and 
a  kingdom  established  by  some  special  manifestation 
of  God's  power.  It  was  this  connotation  of  the  term 
that  filled  Pilate  with  apprehension  when  the  Jews 
declared  that  Jesus  "  made  himself  the  Son  of  God  " 
(John  19  :  7).  Possibly  Pilate  understood  by  it  simply 
a  demigod,  such  as  Romans  recognized ;  more  likely,  he 
knew  enough  of  Jewish  expectations  to  understand  it  in 
the  Jewish  sense;  at  any  rate,  it  meant  to  him,  as  to 
the  others,  a  person  claiming  peculiar  divine  relations 
and  support. 

In  the  Synoptics  Jesus  never  uses  the  term  Himself, 
though  He  accepts  it  gladly  when  Peter  uses  it  in  his 
confession;  and  at  the  last,  when  reserve  is  no  longer 
necessary.  He  replies  "  I  am  "  to  the  question  of  the 
highpriest,  "Art  thou  the  Son  of  God?"  (Mark  14: 
62 ) .  Whether  the  two  occasions  in  John  where  He  is 
reported  to  have  used  it  (5 :  18;  10:  36)  are  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  historical  or  are  the  evangelist's  own  choice 
of  a  term  to  express  the  meaning  of  Jesus,  we  cannot 
say.  But  in  John  repeatedly  and  in  three  passages 
in  the  Synoptics  (Luke  10:22;  Mark  13:32;  Matt. 
28:  19)  Jesus  speaks  of  Himself  as  "the  Son,"  with 


JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  221 

a  significance  that  is  evidently  more  than  Messianic. 
So,  too,  in  the  parable  of  the  wicked  husbandmen 
(Mark  12 :  i  f.)  and  in  His  question  to  the  Pharisees, 
"  What  think  ye  of  the  Christ?  Whose  son  is  he?  " 
(Matt.  22:42),  He  is  claiming  a  relationship  to  God 
much  higher  than  what  popular  thought  assigned  to 
the  Messiah.  This  relationship  is  revealed  not  only 
in  the  way  in  which  He  spoke  of  Himself  but  also  in  the 
way  in  which  He  spoke  of  "  my  Father  "  and  "  your 
Father."  Long  ago  Horace  Bushnell,  in  a  classic 
chapter  of  his  "  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,"  pointed 
out  that  the  character  of  Jesus  forbids  His  possible 
classification  with  men.  With  equal  truth  it  may  be 
said  that  the  attitude  of  Jesus  to  God,  as  shown  in 
word  and  in  deed,  forbids  His  classification  with  men; 
they  may  be  sons  of  God,  He  is  the  Son  of  God. 

It  is  apart  from  the  purpose  of  this  book  to  discuss 
whether  the  sonship  of  Jesus  was  ethical  or  meta- 
physical, i.e.,  whether  He  was  the  Son  of  God  because 
of  His  perfect  harmony  in  will  and  thought  and  feel- 
ing with  the  Father,  or  He  was  the  Eternal  Son  made 
manifest  in  the  flesh.  Such  a  discussion  would  take 
us  out  of  the  realm  of  history  into  that  of  theology, 
and  our  subject  is  the  history  of  Jesus.  That  history, 
unless  we  refuse  to  base  it  on  the  gospel  records  and 
undertake  to  frame  it  by  pure  conjecture,  establishes 
His  claim  to  be  called  the  Son  of  God,  not  only  in  the 
Jewish  Messianic  sense,  but  also  with  a  significance 
that  proclaims  Him  the  unique  and  central  figure  in  the 
world's  history. 

4.    The  Son  of  Man.  j 

The  Son  of  Man  is  the  most  interesting  of  all  the 
titles  of  Jesus  because  it  was  the  one  He  took  for  Him- 


222  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

self.  With  the  exception  of  Stephen's  words  in  the 
hour  of  martyrdom  (Acts  7:56),  which  evidently 
were  connected  with  Luke  22 :  69,  it  is  found  only  in 
the  lips  of  Jesus  or  of  those  who  quote  Him;  but  he 
uses  it  on  about  forty  different  occasions.  It  is,  also, 
a  most  perplexing  title,  arousing  discussion  not  only 
among  those  who  listened  to  Him  (John  12:  34),  but 
also  among  the  scholars  in  the  present  day.  Indeed,  to 
determine  the  meaning  that  Jesus  put  into  it,  "has 
justly  been  described  as  the  most  confused  and  intri- 
cate problem  in  New  Testament  theology"  (Mackin- 
tosh). There  are  some  who, — basing  their  argument 
upon  the  fact  that  Jesus  spoke  Aramaic, — take  away 
from  it  all  meaning^ exceptthat  of  "  man  "  in  general; 
and  tliere'^Te  others  who  make  it  such  a  clear  Mes-^ 
sianic  title  that  the  failure  of  Jesus'  hearers  to  grasp 
the  meaning  is  inexplicable.  Some  hold  that  it  em- 
phasizes the  humanity  of  Jesus, — as  if  that  needed 
emphasis,  being  most  evident;  and  others  consider 
it  equivalent  to  "  the  ideal  man,"  the  type  of  the  human 
race, — a  subtle  philosophic  thought  whose  Jewish  ex- 
pression, if  a  Jewish  mind  entertained  it,  would  be 
"  the  second  Adam,"  rather  than  the  Son  of  Man. 

Without  stopping  to  discuss  these  possible  meanings, 
we  may  note  that  the  title  had  been  used  long  before 
the  days  of  Jesus  with  various  significations.  "  Son  of 
man  "  in  Ezekiel  designates  the  prophet  himself,  and 
emphasizes  his  weakness  and  utter  dependence  upon 
God;  "the  son  of  man"  in  Ps.  8:4  means  man  in 
general,  but  man  as  the  heir  of  creation,  the  favored 
of  God,  ranking  close  to  angels  in  glory;  a  form  like 
unto  "  a  son  of  man "  in  the  apocalyptic  part  of 
Daniel  (7:  13  f.)  represents  "the  saints  of  the  Most 
High,"  whose  kingdom  is  to  be   everlasting,   while 


JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  22S 

heathen  nations  with  their  transient  power  are  repre- 
sented in  the  form  of  beasts.  From  the  use  of  the 
term  in  Daniel  the  development  of  a  Messianic  meaning 
in  it  by  later  apocalypses  would  be  most  natural;  and 
we  do  find  it  used  with  that  meaning  in  portions  of  the 
Book  of  Enoch,  written  probably  not  long  before  the 
Christian  era.  The  Son  of  Man  in  Enoch  is  a  personal 
title  for  a  supernatural,  pre-existent  being  who,  com--^'- 
ing  to  earth,  sits  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  which 
is  likewise  God's  throne,  and  rules  all  nations  and 
executes  all  judgment.  He  is  the  Messiah  of  apoca- 
lyptic expectation.  This  meaning  of  the  term  would 
be  less  familiar  because  it  had  so  recently  been 
developed. 

With  such  a  history  the  Son  of  Man  must  have 
been  decidedly  an  ambiguous  term  in  the  days  of 
Jesus;  and  the  people  who  heard  Him  use  it  would 
not  always  give  it  the  same  meaning.  In  certain  in- 
stances they  would  understand  Him  to  be  speaking, 
as  did  the  Psalmist,  about  man  generically,  e.g.,  Mark 
2:10,  28.  More  often  they  would  recognize  that  He 
was  speaking  about  Himself;  and  since  they  accepted 
Him  as  a  prophet,  they  would  suppose  that  He  was 
assuming  a  designation  much  like  that  which  Jehovah 
gave  to  Ezekiel,  e.g.,  Luke  7:34;  9:58;  19:  10;  22: 
48.  In  John  12 :  23-24  they  evidently  at  the  begin- 
ning understood  Him  to  be  talking  about  the  apoca- 
lyptic Messiah,  but  were  led  by  His  later  statements  to 
question  whether  He  was  using  the  term  with  its 
Messianic  meaning.  The  Messianic  meaning  was,  how- 
ever, clearly  expressed  and  understood  in  His  answer 
to  the  highpriest  (Mark  14:  62).  In  His  private  con- 
versations with  His  disciples  Jesus  seems  to  have  used 
the  term  sometimes  with  evident  self-designation  and 


\ 


224)  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

sometimes  with  evident  reference  to  the  future  Mes- 
siah, but  seldom  if  ever  in  such  a  way  that  the  two 
would  be  recognized  as  unquestionably  identical.  In- 
deed, in  such  statements  as  "  whosoever  shall  be 
ashamed  of  me,  the  Son  of  Man  also  shall  be  ashamed 
of  him  "  (Mark  8:  38),  He  seemed  to  speak  of  Him- 
self and  the  Son  of  Man  as  two  distinct  persons.  It  is 
no  wonder  that  the  disciples  were  puzzled  to  know 
what  He  meant.  For  example,  all  His  teachings  about 
His  impending  death  were,  according  to  Mark,  state- 
ments as  to  what  should  befall  the  Son  of  Man;  and, 
as  they  listened,  the  Twelve  at  first  understood  that  He 
was  talking  about  Himself,  but  they  were  rebuked  and 
seemingly  led  to  think  the  Son  of  Man  was  the  future 
Messiah  (Mark  8 :  32-38)  ;  then,  when  they  had  settled 
upon  this  meaning,  they  were  told  that  the  Son  of  Man 
must  arise  from  the  dead  which  in  no  way  agreed  with 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah  in  glory  (Mark  9:9-10); 
and  presently  they  found  themselves  in  a  state  of  per- 
plexity where  they  neither  understood  nor  dared  to  ask 
His  meaning   (9:31-32). 

Just  what  did  the  term  mean  to  Jesus  Himself? 
This,  of  course,  is  the  most  important  question.  The 
answer  is  not  easy,  and  is  made  more  difficult  because 
we  are  not  always  sure  about  the  evangelists'  reports, 
e.g.,  on  three  occasions  Matthew  has  Son  of  Man  when 
the  parallel  accounts  indicate  that  Jesus  did  not  use  it 
(12:32;  16:  13,  28).  Nor  can  we  be  sure  that  Jesus 
always  used  it  with  the  same  meaning.  But  evidently 
in  most  instances,.if_.not  jn  all,  He  used  it  as  a  Messianic 
title.  The  theory  that  Jesus  did  not  believe  Himself  to 
be  the  Messiah,  and  undertook  merely  to  prepare  His 
people  for  a  future  Messiah,  can  be  maintained  only 
by  discrediting  the  whole  gospel  narrative.     It  is  one 


JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  225 

of  those  paradoxical  propositions  which  certain 
scholars  set  forth  and  thereby  draw  attention  to  them- 
selves. The  reticence  of  Jesus  .concerning  His  Mes- 
siahship,  especially  in  the  popular  Galilean  ministry, 
can  best  be  explained, — as  we  have  seen, — by  the  neces- 
sity of  teaching  the  true  character  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom  before  announcing  Himself  to  be  its  ruler. 
The  men  who  were  to  be  asked  to  choose  Him  as  their 
king  must  first  understand  what  the  choice  involved; 
otherwise  their  action  would  be  of  no  real  value.  To 
proclaim  Himself  the  Messiah,  or  to  adopt  the  well- 
known  Messianic  titles,  "  the  son  of  David  "  and  "  the 
Son  of  God,"  would  at  once  arouse  excitement,  and 
attract  a  crowd  of  followers,  some  thirsting  for  venge- 
ance upon  the  Romans,  some  hungering  for  material 
comforts,  some  expecting  marvels  and  prodigies,  but 
few  or  none  seeking  the  spiritual  blessings  He  waited 
to  bestow.  Nevertheless,  in  preaching  the  gospel  of 
the  kingdom,  Jesus  could  not  assume  the  attitude  of 
a  mere  herald,  a  John  the  Baptist.  The  kingdom  was 
His,  and  He  must  not  seem  to  waive  all  claims  to  it. 
So  He  took  for  Himself  a  title,  unfamiliar  yet  truly 
Messianic,  "  the  Son  of  Man."  It  did  not  excite  the 
people  because  often  they  did  not  give  it  a  Messianic 
meaning,  and  when  they  did,  they  thought  of  the 
apocalyptic  Messiah,  for  whose  coming  they  could  do 
nothing  more  than  patiently  wait  with  longing;  and 
yet,  by  its  Old  Testament  associations,  it  "  struck  a 
chord  that  must  have  vibrated  in  every  heart " 
(Worsley). 

Probably  Jesus  chose  the  Son  of  Man  for  His  title 
because  it  was  so  obscure,  and  because  it  suited  equally 
well  His  present  work  as  prophet  and  His  future  work 
as  king;  as  the  Son  of  Man  He  was  now  revealing  the 


226  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Father,  and  as  the  Son  of  Man  hereafter  He  would 
come  in  the  glory  of  the  Father.  And  He  must  have 
felt  a  fondness  for  the  term  because  it  had  gathered 
such  rich  connotations  in  its  development.  Man  ge- 
nerically,  man  in  his  need  and  weakness,  man  in  his 
power  and  greatness,  man  in  his  ideal  state  as  a  saint 
of  God, — all  these  meanings  had  enriched  the  title 
before  it  became  a  personal  one  for  the  Messiah. 
Hence,  as  a  Messianic  title  it  ever  suggests  the  rela- 
tions of  the  Messiah  to  mankind.  Jesus  could  and 
did  use  it  in  connection  both  with  His  present  weak- 
ness and  suffering  and  with  His  future  power  and 
glory,  because  in  all  stages  of  His  work,  as  servant 
or  as  king,  He  presented  Himself  as  the  Saviour  of 
men.  The  Son  of  God  has  an  upward  look  to  the 
Father;  the  Son  of  Man,  with  no  less  of  divine  signifi- 
cance, has  ever  an  outward  look  upon  the  great  world 
of  the  human  race. 

5.   The  Future  Coming  of  the  Son  of  Man. 

In  studying  the  teachings  of  Jesus  about  the  kingdom 
of  God  we  noted  that  in  addition  to  His  abundant 
instructions  about  what  may  be  called  the  ethical  king- 
dom, there  was  a  distinct  line  of  teachings  about  the 
eschatological  kingdom,  i.e.,  the  kingdom  to  be  estab- 
lished at  the  end  of  the  present  age  with  outward 
circumstance  and  by  supernatural  agency  after  the 
fashion  of  apocalyptical  thought.  It  is  usually  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  a  future  coming  of  the  Son 
of  Man  in  glory  to  establish  it;  therefore,  its  considera- 
tion was  postponed  until  we  had  endeavored  to  deter- 
mine the  meaning  of  the  title,  the  Son  of  Man. 

The  whole  subject  is  not  an  easy  one;  and  it  suffers 
from  too  much  attention  on  the  part  of  a  few,  as  well 


JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  227 

as  from  total  neglect  on  the  part  of  many.  Its  diffi- 
culties arise  not  only  through  the  great  differences 
between  the  two  kingdoms,  but  also  through  seemingly 
contradictory  statements  as  to  when  the  Son  of  Man 
shall  come.  Now,  whatever  theory  we  adopt  about  the 
limitations  of  Jesus'  knowledge,  we  cannot  suppose  that 
He  was  uncertain  about  the  character  of  His  king- 
dom, or  that  at  one  moment  He  said  the  events  He 
was  describing  in  connection  with  it  would  take  place 
in  that  generation,  and  the  very  next  moment  declared 
that  only  the  Father  knew  the  day  and  hour  (Mark 
13:30-32).  Confucius  laid  down  the  rule,  "When 
you  know  a  thing,  to  know  that  you  know  it;  and 
when  you  do  not  know  a  thing,  to  know  that  you  do 
not  know  it : — this  is  knowledge " ;  and  certainly 
Jesus  had  reached  the  Confucian  standard  of  wisdom. 
But  though  the  kingdom  and  the  way  in  which  it  was 
to  be  established  must  have  been  clear  to  His  own 
mind,  two  important  facts  could  not  be  made  clear  to 
His  disciples.  One  was  that  the  supreme  event  by 
which  He  would  be  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
with  power  was  the  resurrection  (Rom.  1:4);  the 
other  was  that,  after  He  had  thus  fully  established  the 
kingdom,  the  work  of  proclaiming  it  and  persuading 
men  to  enter  it  was  to  be  left  to  His  disciples  until  a 
far-off  day  when  He  should  return  once  more  for  its 
consummation.  To  make  His  disciples  understand  was 
impossible,  when  even  the  fact  of  His  death  was  veiled 
from  them;  yet  to  keep  utter  silence  about  these  cen- 
tral truths  when  teaching  the  things  of  the  kingdom 
and  the  things  concerning  Himself  was  equally  impos- 
sible. Even  at  the  risk  of  being  misunderstood  He 
must  try  to  make  His  hearers  share  something  of  the 
thoughts  that  filled  His  own  mind. 


228  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

In  the  light  of  our  present  knowledge  we  can  dis- 
tinguish three  distinct  advents  of  the  Son  of  Man  to 
establish  His  kingdom ;  he  came  from  the  humble  home 
in  Nazareth;  He  came  again  from  the  riven  tomb  in 
Jerusalem ;  and  He  is  yet  to  come  from  the  right  hand 
of  the  Majesty  on  high.  We  may  expect,  therefore, 
to  find  that  whatever  Jesus  taught  about  a  future 
coming  is,  if  correctly  reported,  in  reference  either  to 
His  death  and  resurrection  or  to  His  final  appearance 
as  the  judge  of  the  world.  The  first  assignment  of 
a  date  for  His  coming  is  His  command  to  the  Twelve 
when  they  went  forth  on  their  independent  mission  in 
Galilee :  "  When  they  persecute  you  in  this  city,  flee 
into  the  next;  for  verily  I  say  unto  you.  Ye  shall 
not  have  gone  through  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son 
of  Man  come  "  (Matt.  lo :  23).  Evidently  these  words 
are  a  warning  against  spending  fruitless  labors  upon 
hostile  cities;  and  the  reason  assigned  is  the  brevity 
of  the  time  that  remains;  the  harvest  is  plenteous  but 
the  laborers  are  few  (Matt.  9:  37),  and  it  will  not  be 
possible  to  reach  all  the  fields  before  the  Son  of  Man 
comes.  The  warning  was  uttered  at  an  hour  when  the 
signs  of  failure  in  the  Galilean  work  made  the  nearness 
of  His  death  certain ;  but  it  is  not  necessarily  a  predic- 
tion that  His  death  and  resurrection  would  take  place 
before  the  Twelve  returned  from  their  brief  tour.  If 
it  had  been  so  understood,  the  promptness  with  which 
it  was  shown  to  be  incorrect  would  have  kept  the  dis- 
ciples from  treasuring  it  in  memory  or  reporting  it 
without  explanation.  The  next  date  assigned  was 
when  in  connection  with  Peter's  great  confession 
Jesus  said  that  some  who  were  then  with  Him  would 
not  die  before  they  saw  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  His 
kingdom  (Matt,  16:28)  or,  according  to  Mark,  the 


JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  229 

kingdom  of  God  come  with  power  (9:1).  This  is 
thought  by  some  to  refer  to  the  transfiguration,  which 
took  place  a  week  later;  but  the  very  form  of  the 
statement  implying  the  death  of  some  shows  that  it 
could  hardly  refer  to  an  event  so  immediately  at  hand; 
and  it  is  better  understood  as  a  reference  to  His  death 
and  resurrection  about  which  He  was  at  this  time  giv- 
ing them  the  first  lesson.  Along  with  this  should  be 
put  His  statement  in  His  final  testimony  before  the 
Sanhedrin  that  from  that  hour  forward  they  should 
see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power 
and  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven  (Matt.  26:64), 
which,  again,  refers  to  His  glorification  by  death  and 
resurrection.  In  the  great  discourse  on  the  Mount  of 
Olives  He  foretold  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and 
said  that  after  that  tribulation  the  Son  of  Man  would 
come  in  clouds  with  great  power  and  glory  (Mark  13 : 
26).  The  disciples  supposed  it  to  be  "immediately" 
after  (Matt.  24:  29)  but  as  He  Himself  declared  that 
He  did  not  know  the  day  or  the  hour,  we  conclude  that 
the  close  connection  of  these  two  events  was  made  by 
the  disciples  and  not  by  Him.  This  coming  is  evidently 
the  same  as  that  at  the  final  day  of  judgment  (Matt, 

25:31)- 

In  considering  the  apocalyptic  form  of  His  teach- 
ings about  the  future  kingdom,  we  may  assign  some 
of  it  to  the  evangelists.  The  author  of  the  First  Gos- 
pel, which  is  most  Jewish  in  character,  insists  on 
interpreting  Jesus'  statements  according  to  Jewish 
eschatological  ideas,  while  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  there 
is  much  less  of  such  interpretation,  and  in  John  scarcely 
any.  And  the  passage  that  in  all  the  Synoptists  most 
abounds  in  eschatology,  the  discourse  on  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  is  thought  by  some  critics  to  incorporate  a  Jew- 


230  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

ish  apocalypse  (Mark  i^^iy-ga,  14-20,  24-27,  30-31) 
which  in  the  opinion  of  the  evangehst  expressed  the 
ideas  of  Jesus  about  the  future.  Probably,  also,  those 
who  originally  listened  to  Jesus  as  He  taught  about  the 
future  understood  Him  to  be  setting  forth  apocalyp- 
tical ideas  because  their  own  minds  were  already  full 
of  such  ideas.  Certainly  the  questions  that  called  forth 
the  discourse  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  if  Matthew 
states  them  correctly  (24:  3),  indicate  that  the  disciples 
in  their  own  thought  synchronized  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  end  of 
the  present  seon;  and  probably  it  is  this  confusion  of 
their  ideas  that  causes  the  difficulty  when  we  seek  to 
determine  the  relative  time  of  each  of  the  three  events 
by  studying  their  report  of  that  discourse.  Again, 
nothing  is  more  likely  than  that  Jesus,  in  order  to  reach 
His  hearers,  adopted  the  apocalyptic  form  in  some  of 
His  teachings  without  endorsing  apocalyptic  concep- 
tions. We  notice,  for  example,  that  the  parable  of  the 
rich  man  and  Lazarus  (Luke  i6:i9f.)  is  full  of 
Jewish  eschatological  ideas,  yet  we  do  not  accept  them 
as  the  ideas  of  Jesus  about  the  hereafter;  they  are 
simply  a  familiar  setting  for  the  one  great  lesson  of  the 
parable,  which  is  that  whoever  selifishly  shuts  himself 
away  from  humanity's  need  will  be  left  thus  separated 
and  alone  hereafter  when  in  sorest  need  himself. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  not  possible  to  eliminate  all  the 
apocalyptical  element  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  And 
the  fact  that  His  teaching  contained  this  element  is 
confirmed  by  the  prevalence  of  apocalyptical  expecta- 
tions in  the  early  church,  both  the  Jewish  and  the 
Gentile  (e.g.,  Acts  3:  19-21,  I  Peter  4:  13,  I  Thess.  4: 
16  f.).  The  return  of  Jesus  in  the  near  future,  and 
the  establishment  of  His  kingdom  by  a  startling  mani- 


JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  231 

festation  of  His  power  and  glory,  were  eagerly  ex- 
pected by  these  Christians ;  and  their  whole  conception 
of  their  present  work  as  His  disciples  was  fashioned 
accordingly.  They  believed  that  He  had  gone  back  to 
the  Father  because  the  world  was  not  yet  ready  to 
receive  Him,  and  had  left  them  to  prepare  the  people 
for  His  second  coming,  somewhat  as  John  the  Baptist 
had  tried  to  prepare  them  for  His  first  coming.  When- 
ever the  preparation  was  complete, — and  they  hoped 
the  time  was  near, — He  would  return  in  glory,  and 
establish  an  eternal  kingdom  by  acts  of  judgment  and 
reward.  The  motto  of  the  Apostolic  Age  was  maran 
atha,  "  Our  Lord  cometh  "  (I  Cor.  i6:  22)  ;  and  when 
it  could  no  longer  be  used  unquestioningly,  the  Apos- 
tolic Age  ended. 

The  words  of  Jesus  about  His  final  coming  still 
await  interpretation;  and  if  we  are  to  judge  by  the 
past,  they  will  not  become  clear  until  experience  makes 
them  so.  All  the  teachings  of  Israel's  prophets  failed 
to  make  the  nation  understand  the  way  in  which  Jesus 
was  to  come  the  first  time ;  all  His  own  teachings  failed 
to  make  His  disciples  understand  the  way  in  which  He 
was  to  come  the  second  time ;  is  it  likely  that  the  teach- 
ings concerning  the  way  in  which  He  is  yet  to  come 
will  be  more  clearly  understood?  The  lessons  about 
His  future  kingdom  are  given  in  parable  and  apoca- 
lypse; we  cannot  take  them  literally;  yet  who  can  say 
^how  else  they  should  be  taken? 


Y 


XV 
THE  PERAEAN  MINISTRY 

I.    The  General  Character. 

PERAEA, — "  the  land  across," — was  a  loosely  de- 
fined region  extending  from  the  Decapolis  to  the 
Arnon  (about  seventy  miles),  and  from  the  Jordan 
east  to  the  desert ;  it  was  the  old  land  of  Gilead  and  the 
northern  part  of  Moab, — a  larger  region  than  Judea 
or  Galilee.  With  an  average  elevation  of  two  thousand 
feet  above  the  Mediterranean,  with  temperate  climate, 
fine  pastures,  fertile  soil,  it  was  well  suited  for  a  large 
population,  if  protected  from  the  ravages  of  the  desert 
rangers.  Today  it  is  a  land  of  ruins  because  it  lacks 
such  protection :  but  in  the  days  of  Christ,  when  Herod 
Antipas  ruled  it  and  held  marauders  in  check,  it 
abounded  in  cities.  The  population  was  so  largely 
heathen  that  orthodox  Jews  despised  it.  The  rabbis 
said,  "Judea  is  the  wheat;  Galilee,  the  chaff;  Peraea, 
the  tares."  It  was  in  this  land  across  the  Jordan  that 
Jesus  spent  much  of  the  last  months  of  His  life;  for 
which  reason  we  call  the  whole  period  the  Peraean 
ministry. 

The  purpose  of  this  ministry  arose  out  of  the  situa- 
tion. Jesus  had  been  rejected  by  Judea  and  Galilee; 
the  Twelve  had  recognized  His  Messiahship,  and  re- 
ceived some  special  training  for  the  future ;  the  conflict 
with  the  Sanhedrin  was  on,  and  its  evident  issue  was 
the  cross :  but,  if  possible,  the  end  must  not  come  until 
the  next  Passover,  and  then  at  Jerusalem.     "With 

232 


THE  PERAEAN  MINISTRY  233 

desire  have  I  desired  to  eat  this  passover  with  you  be- 
fore I  suffer  "  (Luke  22 :  15)  ;  "  I  must  go  on  my  way 
today  and  tomorrow  and  the  day  following;  for  it 
cannot  be  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem  " 
(Luke  13  :  33).  In  one  sense  the  whole  Peraean  minis- 
try was,  as  Luke  describes  it,  a  slow  journey  towards 
Jerusalem,  i.e.,  it  looked  towards  Jerusalem  at  every 
step,  and  was  to  culminate  in  the  triumphal  entry  and 
the  crucifixion.  As  a  journey  it  had  no  definite  route 
or  length  or  stay  in  any  place ;  there  were  interruptions 
(e.g.,  the  visit  to  Jerusalem  for  the  feast  of  Dedication 
and  to  Bethany  for  the  raising  of  Lazarus)  ;  and  during 
the  last  part  of  it  Jesus  was  in  retirement  at  Ephraim. 
But  it  was,  also,  for  the  most  part  a  period  of  active 
ministry,  made  more  intense  by  the  knowledge  that  the 
time  was  growing  short.  "  We  must  work  the  works 
of  Him  that  sent  me,  while  it  is  day ;  the  night  cometh, 
when  no  man  can  work  "  (John  9:4). 

The  present  work  of  Jesus  was  chiefly  the  further 
training  of  the  Twelve,  an  unending  task.  Now  that 
they  knew  Him  to  be  the  Messiah,  they  could  gain  a 
clearer  idea  of  His  Messianic  mission  and  character 
by  joining  once  more  in  a  public  ministry,  after  the 
comparative  seclusion  of  the  previous  months.  But  for 
this  a  new  field  was  necessary.  Judea  was  too  dan- 
gerous ;  any  prolonged  stay  and  work  there  would  bring 
about  situations  in  which  He  could  escape  death  only 
by  using  His  miraculous  power  for  His  own  safety, — 
^  a  thing  He_eyer  refused  tp^do.  Galilee  was  too  unre- 
'  Iponsive;  it  had  already  turned  away  and  cared  little 
for  His  words.  Samaria  would  not  do;  since  any 
work  there  would  seem  to  justify  the  opposition  of  the 
Jewish  rulers  who  already  were  declaring  Him  to  be  a 
demonized  Samaritan  (John  8:48).    Peraea  was  the 


234  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

'V  only  untried  Jewish  soil.  Its  people  were  compara- 
tively free  from  the  influence  of  the  Jewish  rulers,  so 
that  Jesus  would  not  be  hindered  by  emissaries  of  the 
Sanhedrin ;  and  yet  it  was  so  near  Judea  that  He  could 
easily  make  unexpected  visits  to  Jerusalem.  For,  after 
all,  the  real  center  of  this  ministry  was  Jerusalem,  and 
the  chief  work  was  in  anticipation  of  the  final  action 
of  the  Sanhedrin,  The  Gospel  of  John  is  the  most 
valuable  record  at  this  point  because  it  alone  gives  us 
the  increasing  self-revelation  of  Jesus  to  the  rulers  and 
their  increasingly  hostile  response. 

The  Jews  across  the  Jordan  thronged  around  Jesus 
in  a  way  that  at  times  reminds  us  of  the  early  Galilean 
days,  though  miracles  seem  to  have  played  a  minor  part 
in  drawing  them.  So  far  as  we  can  judge,  their  wish 
was  that  Jesus  would  proclaim  Himself  king,  and 
achieve  for  them  independence.  There  is  no  definite 
statement  to  that  effect;  but  we  note  that,  as  this 
ministry  nears  its  close,  there  is  a  confident  expecta- 
tion that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  immediately  to  appear 
(Luke  19:  11),  and  James  and  John  seek  for  them- 
selves the  principal  places  in  it  (Mark  10:37).  The 
rulers  at  Jerusalem  are  afraid  that  Jesus  will  head  an 
insurrection  against  the  Romans  (John  11 :48).  The 
Triumphal  Entry,  which  the  people  think  to  be  a  public 
acceptance  of  the  throne  of  David,  is  the  culmination 
of  the  Peraean  ministry.  There  was  nothing  else- 
where to  stir  up  such  purely  political  demands  from 
the  Messiah.  In  Judea  the  Sadducees  were  on  the  side 
of  the  Romans,  and  the  Pharisees  were  waiting  for 
Jehovah  at  His  pleasure  to  free  His  chosen  people  by 
supernatural  means.  In  Galilee  the  people  were  not 
anxious  for  independence;  trade,  commerce  and  life 
in  general  prospered  too  well  under  Roman  rule;  and 


THE  PERAEAN  MINISTRY  235 

Herod  Antipas,  '''  whatever  may  be  said  of  his  morals, 
was,  as  a  ruler,  liberal,  energetic  and  capable  in  every 
sense  "  (Merrill).  When  the  Galileans  sought  to  make 
Jesus  king,  it  was  because  they  desired,  not  release 
from  the  Romans,  but  loaves  and  fishes.  What  the 
state  of  things  in  Peraea  was  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing,  except  from  the  gospel  account.  There  was 
little  resistance  to  the  Romans  in  68  a.d.,  probably 
because  the  population  was  less  Jewish  than  even  that 
of  Galilee.  But  the  very  predominance  of  Gentiles 
would  make  the  Jews  more  restless  and  eager  for  a 
political  Messiah  who  might  reclaim  their  land  from 
the  heathen ;  and  with  such  desire  they  would  welcome 
the  coming  of  Jesus. 

This  ministry  covers  the  period  from  the  close  of  the 
Border  ministry  till  Passion  Week.  The  date  of  the 
end  is  certain ;  that  of  the  beginning  is  less  so.  Some 
would  make  it  just  before  or  even  immediately  after 
the  feast  of  Dedication  which  came  the  latter  part  of 
December.  The  argument  from  weather  is  for  an 
earlier  beginning.  At  the  outset  crowds  follow  Jesus 
(Mark  lo:  i ;  Luke  12 :  i ;  14:  25),  which  would  hardly 
happen  in  the  rain  or  snow  of  a  December  on  the  high- 
lands across  the  Jordan,  but  would  be  natural  in  the 
period  after  the  autumn  harvest  feast,  when  farm- 
work  was  suspended  and  the  rainy  season  had  not  set 
in.  If  we  make  the  Peraean  ministry  begin  in  October, 
soon  after  Tabernacles,  we  shall  have  a  time  of  semi- 
activity  after  Dedication  and  of  retirement  in  Ephraim 
after  the  raising  of  Lazarus;  there  were  special  rea- 
sons for  these,  but  the  inclement  weather  might,  also, 
play  a  part  in  causing  them. 


H- 


236  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST, 

2.    The  Record  of  this  Ministry. 

Mark,  who  is  followed  by  Matthew,  has  only  a 
brief  record  of  the  Peraean  ministry  with  the  follow- 
ing incidents :  the  question  about  divorce,  the  blessing 
of  little  children,  the  rich  young  ruler,  a  lesson  of  the 
cross,  the  ambitious  request  of  James  and  John,  and 
the  healing  of  Bartimaeus.  He  seems  to  distinguish, 
even  in  this  brief  account,  two  stages, — a  general  work 
after  coming  "  into  the  borders  of  Judea  and  beyond 
the  Jordan"  (lo:  i),  and  a  final  journey  "going  up 
to  Jerusalem"  (10:32),  apparently  just  before  the 
last  Passover. 

John  has  three  incidents  belonging  to  this  period, 
viz. :  the  feast  of  Dedication  with  its  miracle  of  heal- 
ing the  blind  man,  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  and  the 
retirement  to  Ephraim. 

Apparently  the  great  source  for  this  ministry  is 
Luke.  He  tells  all  that  Mark  and  Matthew  do,  except 
the  question  about  divorce  and  the  request  of  James 
and  John;  and  he  has  also  a  long,  independent  nar- 
rative (9 :  51-18 :  15)  seemingly  belonging  to  the  period 
after  the  final  departure  from  Galilee,  and  giving  the 
events  and  still  more  largely  the  teachings  in  a  journey 
towards  Jerusalem  (9:51,  59;  10:38;  13:22,  23;  17: 
11).  We  find,  however,  in  this  narrative  some  inci- 
dents that  Matthew  and  Mark  assign  to  other  periods, 
e.g.,  the  conditional  offer  of  certain  men  to  follow 
Jesus  (9:57-60),  the  lesson  of  the  Lord's  Prayer 
(11 :  1-4),  the  charge  of  diabolism  and  the  request  for 
a  sign  (11  :  14-32),  the  parables  of  the  mustard-seed 
and  the  leaven  (13  :  18-20),  and  the  lament  over  Jeru- 
salem ( 13  :  34-35).  Certain  other  incidents  found  only 
here  seem  to  suit  better  the  Galilean  ministry,  e.g.,  the 


THE  PERAEAN  MINISTRY  237 

healing  on  the  Sabbath  of  a  bowed  woman  and  of  a 
dropsical  man  (13:  10  f. ;  14:  i  f.),  which  reflect  the 
situation  when  the  attitude  of  Jesus  towards  the  Sab- 
bath was  first  causing  censure ;  and  the  dinner  with  the 
Pharisee  (11 :  37  f.)  which,  together  with  the  miracle 
and  accompanying  discourse  immediately  preceding  it 
(cf.  Matt.  i2:22f.),  belong  to  the  time  when  the 
charge  of  diabolism  was  brought  forward.  What  shall 
we  hold,  then,  about  this  whole  section  in  Luke?  Is 
it  "  the  great  insertion  "  filling  up  historically  a  gap 
left  by  Mark  and  Matthew ;  or  is  it  "  the  scrap-basket  " 
into  which  Luke  put  all  the  incidents  to  which  he  could 
not  assign  a  definite  chronological  place?  The  latter 
view  seems  much  more  probable.  Some  of  this  section 
has  a  topical  unity,  and  may  have  come  to  him  already 
arranged  (e.g.,  Weizsacker  thinks  Luke  14  was  origi- 
nally a  compilation  of  instructions  for  the  common 
meal  of  the  early  Christians)  ;  the  rest  of  it  seems  to 
be  without  any  arrangement,  and  put  in  its  present 
place  simply  because  it  remained  on  hand  after  the 
other  ministries  had  been  described,  though  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  it  really  belonged  elsewhere.  If 
this  is  so,  our  knowledge  of  the  exact  course  and  events 
of  the  Peraean  ministry  must  remain  uncertain,  which 
explains  the  fact  that  modern  lives  of  Jesus  vary  most 
widely  in  precisely  this  portion  of  the  narrative. 

3.   The  Public  Work  in  Peraea. 

According  to  Luke,  Jesus  began  His  Peraean  minis- 
try by  sending  out  seventy  disciples  to  go  before  Him 
as  heralds,  two  by  two,  into  every  city  and  place 
whither  He  was  coming,  and  to  proclaim,  "  The  king- 
dom of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you  "  (10:  i  f.).  The 
account  presents  difficulties.     No  hint  is  given  as  to 


238  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

the  place  from  which  these  heralds  were  sent  or  where 
they  were  to  meet  Him  again ;  much  of  their  instruc- 
tions is  the  same  as  that  to  the  Twelve;  and  the  con- 
cluding woes  against  the  cities  of  the  lake  (lo:  13  f.), 
as  well  as  the  prayer  of  rejoicing  when  the  seventy 
make  their  report,  are  placed  by  Matthew  in  the  Gali- 
lean ministry.  Apparently  the  purpose  of  the  sending 
is  to  arouse  expectation  so  that  crowds  shall  surround 
Jesus  when  He  comes.  Such  a  purpose  might  have 
suited  the  early  Galilean  ministry;  but  Jesus  is  no 
longer  appealing  to  crowds,  and  Herod  now  would  not 
ignore  great  popular  demonstrations.  It  is  possible, 
of  course,  that  Luke  is  correct,  and  has  preserved  a 
remarkable  chapter  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  which 
otherwise  would  have  been  unknown;  but  the  argu- 
ment seems  strong  that  what  he  gives  is  simply  an- 
other version  of  the  mission  of  the  Twelve.  He  had 
already  given  that  mission  in  its  proper  place  (9:  i  f.) 
but  his  material  included  instructions  suiting  a  broader 
work  than  the  little  tour  in  Galilee.  In  his  opinion  the 
\  Peraean  ministry  was  increasingly  a  triumphal  proces- 
sion to  Jerusalem  for  which  an  advance  proclamation 
by  a  large  number  of  disciples  would  be  fitting ;  it  was, 
also,  the  nearest  approach  to  a  universal  mission  that  he 
could  discover  in  the  work  of  Jesus,  for  Peraea  was  a 
land  of  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  Accordingly  he  sup- 
posed that  at  the  beginning  of  this  ministry  there  was 
a  mission  of  seventy  disciples, — seventy  signifying  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  (that  is  their  number  in 
Genesis  10)  even  as  twelve  signified  the  Jewish 
tribes, — and  he  assigned  to  it  whatever  of  his  material 
did  not  seem  to  suit  the  Galilean  mission. 

In  the  opinion  of  some  scholars  Luke's  narrative 
indicates  three  different  journeys  towards  Jerusalem 


THE  PERAEAN  MINISTRY 

(9-5i>  ^3- 22;  17:11),  corresponding  to  the  visits 
described  in  John,  to  the  feasts  of  Tabernacles  and 
Dedication  and  to  Bethany  for  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus.  If  so,  we  would  have  here  an  undesigned 
harmony  between  the  two  gospels ;  but  the  arrangement 
of  Luke's  material  is  too  loose,  and  the  statements  of 
time  and  place  too  vague,  to  establish  it.  Others  place 
in  this  period  a  work  in  Samaria,  though  the  only  hints 
of  it  are  that,  probably  when  Jesus  was  leaving  Galilee, 
a  Samaritan  village  refused  to  receive  Him  because  He 
seemed  bound  for  Jerusalem  (9 :  53)  ;  and,  as  He  was 
passing  along  the  borders  of  Samaria  and  Galilee,  pos- 
sibly directly  after  this  refusal,  He  healed  ten  lepers, 
of  whom  only  one,  and  he  a  Samaritan,  turned  back 
to  thank  Him  (17:  11-19).  A  Samaritan  ministry  is 
improbable  at  any  time  and  most  of  all  in  these  last 
months  when  everything  centered  upon  the  action  of 
the  rulers  at  Jerusalem. 

In  Peraea  itself  we  cannot  trace  the  wanderings  of 
Jesus  nor  shape  any  narrative  of  events;  the  material 
for  it  has  not  been  preserved.  But  we  are  doubtless 
right  in  concluding  that  the  public  work  there  con- 
sisted mainly  in  teaching  (Mark  10:  i).  To  be  sure, 
Matthew  begins  his  description  by  stating  that  great 
multitudes  followed  Jesus  and  He  healed  them  there 
(19:2);  but  this  is  simply  Matthew's  favorite  intro- 
ductory statement  to  any  public  work  (e.g.,  4:23  f.; 
9:  35;  14:  14;  15  :  30).  The  time  for  a  general  minis- 
try of  healing  was  past;  it  had  been  tried  and  found 
of  little  spiritual  profit. 

The   character   of   the   teaching   is    shown   in   the 
Peraean  parables.    Bruce  in  his  excellent  study  divides 
the  parables  into  three~groups  according  to  their  char — L. 
acter,  viz. :  theoretic  parables,  by  which  he  means  those 


f^ 


240  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

that  teach  the  general  truths  concerning  the  kingdom 
of  God;  parables  of  grace;  and  parables  of  judgment. 
It  is  instructive  to  notice  that  eight  out  of  the  fourteen 
in  his  first  group  belong  to  the  Galilean  ministry; 
nine  out  of  the  twelve  in  his  second  group  belong  to  the 
Peraean  ministry, — if  Luke  is  right  in  placing  them 
there;  and  five  out  of  the  seven  in  his  third  group 
belong  to  the  Passion  Week.  This  confirms  the  con- 
clusion, which  other  facts  warrant,  that  in  Galilee  Jesus 
was  trying  to  make  men  understand  the  nature  of  His 
kingdom ;  in  Peraea  He  was  seeking  by  winning  invita- 
tions to  draw  them  into  the  kingdom;  and  in  the  last 
week  of  His  life  He  was  pronouncing  the  sentence  of 
doom  on  the  nation  because  it  had  refused  to  accept 
the  kingdom  and  the  king.  Among  the  Peraean  para- 
bles are  those  of  the  prodigal  son,  the  lost  sheep,  the 
lost  coin,  the  good  Samaritan,  the  importunate  friend, 
the  great  supper,  the  Pharisee  and  publican.  It  is 
these  and  teachings  of  this  sort  that  make  Luke  pre- 
eminently the  gracious,  tender  Gospel.  The  marked 
evangelistic  tone  of  this  period  may  have  been  caused 
by  the  shadow  of  the  cross.  The  heart  of  Jesus,  as  He 
drew  near  the  hour  of  His  supreme  sacrifice,  yearned 
to  make  men  realize  the  love  of  the  Father.  And 
while  His  words  were  usually  addressed  to  the  multi- 
tude, they  were  doubtless  specially  intended  for  the  dis- 
ciples themselves,  to  teach  them  that  love  is  the 
impelling  power  of  all  divine  work,  and  that  only  by 
self-sacrifice  could  their  own  lives,  like  the  life  of  their 
Maste^r,  be  made  truly  redemptive. 

4.    The  Feast  of  Dedication. 

The  feast  of  Dedication,  which  lasted  eight  days, 
began  on  the  twenty-fifth  of  Chislev,  or  about  the  end 


THE  PERAEAN  MINISTRY  £41 

of  December.  Some  think  that  our  Christmas  was 
derived  from  it,  though  this  is  not  probable.  It  was 
instituted,  164  B.C.,  by  Judas  Maccabseus  in  commemo- 
ration of  the  purification  and  rededication  of  the  tem- 
ple the  previous  year,  after  the  horrible  desecration  by 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  168  B.C.  It  was,  therefore,  a 
patriotic  feast, — a  Jewish  Fourth  of  July.  It  was 
sometimes  called  the  Feast  of  Lights  because  the  temple 
and  the  houses  were  illuminated.  Since  it  was  kept 
everywhere  through  the  land,  comparatively  few  Jews 
went  up  to  Jerusalem  for  it ;  but  that  Jesus  should  go 
up  was  in  accordance  with  His  plan  to  frequent  Jeru- 
salem during  this  final  year. 

In  studying  this  visit  two  critical  questions  have  first 
to  be  considered.  One  concerns  the  time  of  the  miracle 
of  the  man  born  blind;  was  it  at  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, or  at  this  feast,  or  in  the  period  between  the 
two  ?  The  last  is  most  unlikely, — the  hostility  was  too 
great  for  Jesus  to  linger  near  Jerusalem;  the  first  is 
possible,  but  has  nothing  to  support  it  except  that  John 
tells  the  story  immediately  after  telling  the  incidents  at 
Tabernacles.  The  fact  that  Dedication  was  the  Feast 
of  Lights  makes  the  miracle  with  its  lesson,  "  I  am  the 
light  of  the  world  "  (John  9:5),  most  appropriate  for 
this  feast;  and  the  reading  of  some  old  manuscripts, — 
"  at  that  time  was  the  feast  "  (10 :  22), — supports  this 
view.  The  other  critical  question  concerns  the  order 
of  the  narrative.  As  we  have  already  noticed  there  are 
reasons  for  thinking  that  the  text  of  John  has  in  some 
way  suffered  disarrangement.  In  the  present  instance 
the  passage  10:  1-18  seems  properly  to  come  directly 
after  10:22-29,  in  which  case  10:  19-21  becomes  the 
fitting  conclusion  of  the  previous  chapter.  Also  the 
passage  8:  12-20  would  be  much  more  intelligible,  if 


242  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

it  were  placed  after  9:41,  as  a  part  of  Jesus'  discus- 
sion of  the  miracle  with  the  Pharisees. 

This  time  Jesus  brought  the  Twelve  with  Him  to 
Jerusalem,  that  they  might  realize  both  the  hostility  of 
the  rulers  and  also  their  impotence  to  harm  Him  against 
His  will.  The  experience  would  be  good  training  for 
Passion  Week.  He  announced  His  presence  by  opening 
the  eyes  of  a  man  born  blind,  doing  it  on  the  Sabbath 
with  an  outward  act  of  healing,  and  sending  him  pub- 
licly with  the  clay  on  his  eyes  to  wash  at  the  pool  of 
Siloam.  The  Pharisees  in  an  official  examination  of 
the  man  tried  to  discredit  the  miracle  and  the  one  who 
wrought  it;  but  his  honest  obstinacy  baffled  them.  At 
last  in  rage  they  cast  him  out  as  a  hardened  sinner  who 
to  his  other  sins  had  added  belief  in  Jesus,  and  should 
be  excommunicated.  This  examination  took  place,  we 
may  suppose,  in  the  temple.  And  when  the  poor  fel- 
low was  passing  out  under  strict  guard  of  the  Phari- 
sees, as  an  accursed  creature  to  whom  no  one  must 
speak,  Jesus  hastened  to  him  and  put  the  question, 
"Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  Man?",  i.e.,  Are 
you  cast  out  for  believing  on  me?  The  man  knew  so 
little  about  Jesus  and  His  claims  that  he  thought  here 
was  a  further  teaching  which  he  would  gladly  accept. 
So  he  asked,  "  Who  is  he,  sir,  that  I  might  believe  ?  ", 
and  received  the  answer,  "  Thou  hast  both  seen  him, 
and  he  it  is  that  speaketh  with  thee."  Then  Jesus, 
naturally,  was  drawn  into  discussion  by  the  escorting 
Pharisees,  some  of  whom  went  back  with  Him  to  the 
treasury  where  the  others  were  still  assembled;  and 
the  argument  over  His  statement  that  He  was  the  light 
of  the  world  was  carried  to  a  point  that  threatened  His 
arrest ;  "  Yet  no  man  took  him  because  his  hour  was  not 
yet  come"   (John  8:12-20). 


THE  PERAEAN  MINISTRY  243 

The  general  attitude  of  hostility  at  this  feast  was 
much  the  same  as  at  Tabernacles.  The  rulers  de- 
manded that  Jesus  should  tell  them  plainly  whether  He 
was  the  Messiah  (John  lo:  24),  This  was  a  snare  to 
catch  Him.  If  they  could  get  from  Him  an  open 
declaration  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  then  His  claim 
could  be  brought  before  the  Sanhedrin  where  it  cer- 
tainly would  be  pronounced  false,  and  He  would  be 
punished  accordingly.  The  statement  with  which  His 
answer  ended,  "  I  and  the  Father  are  one  "  (10:  30), 
was  understood  to  be  an  assertion  of  divinity,  and 
roused  their  horror  to  the  point  of  stoning  Him;  yet 
the  words  with  which  He  supported  it  left  them  unable 
to  justify  such  an  act.  An_attempt  was  made  now  f  2.33 
to  arrest  Himj  but  "Jbe_ went  forth  out  of  their  handil' 
T)oulDtless  He  spent  His  nights  outside  the  city, — per- 
haps at  Bethany  which  is  only  two  miles  away,  on  the 
eastern  slope  of  the  Mount  of  Olives;  and  this  may  be 
the  time  when  the  incident  of  Mary  and  Martha  took 
place  (Luke  10:38-42).  When  He  left  Jerusalem 
at  the  end  of  the  week,  it  was  with  full  conviction 
that  nothing  more  could  be  done  there ;  and  the  Twelve 
were  of  the  opinion  that  to  return  thither  meant  death 
(John  11:8-16). 

After  Dedication  Jesus  went  across  the  Jordan  to 
the  place  where  John  was  baptizing  when  he  pointed 
out  Jesus  to  the  first  disciples  (10:40;  1:28), — the 
place  where  the  work  now  so  nearly  ended  was  begun. 
Is  it  fanciful  to  see  in  this  act  something  of  the  same 
purpose  and  feeling  that  similar  acts  have  in  our  own 
lives  ?  When  our  life-work  is  closing,  and  we  are  in  the 
mood  for  retrospect,  we  turn  instinctively  to  the  place 
where  that  life-work  began.  So  Jesus  in  these  last  days 
came  back  to  the  place  where  He  had  gathered  His  first 


244?  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

disciples,  and  had  entered  hopefully  upon  His  public 
ministry.  And  as  He  abode  there  His  thoughts,  and 
also  the  thoughts  of  the  disciples,  must  have  been  busy 
with  all  that  intervened  between  that  earlier  day  and 
now.  The  retrospect  was  not  cheering;  nevertheless 
an  unexpected  gleam  of  sunshine  appeared.  John  was 
dead,  but  his  work  was  not  the  utter  failure  most  men 
counted  it.  The  testimony  of  John  to  Jesus  was  re- 
membered here,  and  bore  the  fruit  the  Baptist  desired. 
As  Jesus  tarried,  "  many  came  to  him ;  and  they  said, 
John,  indeed,  did  no  sign,  but  all  things  whatsoever 
John  spake  of  this  man  were  true;  and  many  believed 
on  him  there"  (10:41-42). 

5.   The  Raising  of  Lazarus. 

The  sickness  and  death  of  Lazarus,  with  the  appeal 
from  the  two  sisters,  brought  Jesus  and  the  Twelve 
back  again  to  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Jerusalem, 
and  called  forth  His  most  impressive  miracle.  We 
notice  that  the  miracles  He  wrought  under  the  direct 
notice  of  the  rulers  form  a  steadily  increasing  mani- 
festation of  divine  power.  The  undescribed  miracles 
of  the  first  Passover  seem  to  have  been  simple  acts  of 
healing;  a  year  later,  at  Pentecost,  came  the  notable 
miracle  of  curing  the  man  who  had  an  infirmity  of 
thirty-eight  years'  standing;  then  at  Dedication  was  the 
opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man, — a  miracle  of 
which  the  poor  man  himself  said  (and  he  was  speak- 
ing concerning  a  matter  which  he  had  reason  to  study 
carefully),  "  Since  the  world  began  it  was  not  heard 
that  any  one  opened  the  eyes  of  one  that  was  born 
blind  " ;  and  now  Lazarus,  who  had  lain  four  days  in 
the  tomb, — a  period  beyond  the  limit  of  time  during 
which,  as  the  Jews  believed,  the  spirit  hovered  near 


,THE  PERAEAN  MINISTRY  245 

the  grave, — was  raised  from  the  dead.  We  may  not 
say  that  this  was  the  greatest  of  His  miracles,  for 
we  cannot  measure  miracles;  but  it  certainly  had  the 
greatest  effect.  It  kindled  enthusiasm  and  a  measure 
of  faith  in  the  beholders,  which  bore  fruit  on  Palm 
Sunday  (i2:i7f.);  and  this  enthusiasm  and  faith 
wakened  the  Sadducees  to  the  danger  of  a  popular  in- 
surrection led  by  Jesus,  and  made  them  unite  with  the 
Pharisees  in  seeking  His  death,  because  an  insurrection 
might  result  (as  that  of  66  a.d.  actually  did)  in  the 
destruction  of  the  temple,  the  end  of  their  power,  and 
the  loss  of  such  liberties  as  the  Romans  were  granting 
the  nation  (ii :  47  f.). 

Before  the  Sadducees  were  thus  aroused  to  the  neces- 
sity of  putting  Jesus  out  of  the  way,  the  Pharisees 
had  been  able  to  do  little,  because  they  were  a  minority 
in  the  Sanhedrin.  Now,  if  He  should  be  brought  be- 
fore that  body,  the  result  was  certain.  The  raising  of 
Lazarus,  therefore,  was  the  preliminary  to  the  cruci- 
fixion. Was  not  this  the  main  meaning  of  Jesus' 
words  when  He  said  that  the  sickness  which  caused 
the  death  of  Lazarus  was  "  for  the  glory  of  God,  that 
the  Son  of  Man  may  be  glorified  thereby  "?  (11:4). 
In  John's  reproduction  of  Jesus'  teachings,  the  word, 
"^^ofiTy^^  is  closety  akin  in .  rneanmig  jo  ".crucify"- 
(e.g.,  12:23;  17:  I ).  It  is  true  that  the  miracle  was 
a  fresh  manifestation  of  the  power  and  sympathy  of 
Jesus,  and  thus  revealed  to  the  multitude  the  glory  of 
God  (11 :  40-42)  ;  but  a  greater  glory  was  involved  in 
it, — the  glory  which  Caiaphas  unwittingly  proclaimed 
and  John  interprets, — "  that  Jesus  should  die  for  the 
nation ;  and  not  for  the  nation  only,  but  that  he  might 
also  gather  together  into  one  the  children  of  God  that 
are  scattered  abroad  "  (11:  49-53). 


246  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

The  question  naturally  arises,  Why  are  the  Synop- 
tists  wholly  silent  about  this  miracle?  Some  answer 
it  by  saying  that  they  wrote  when  Lazarus  was  still 
alive,  and  the  hostility  against  him  (12:10)  had  not 
ceased;  therefore,  out  of  consideration  for  his  safety 
the  miracle  was  omitted.  This  seems  far-fetched.  A 
better  answer  is  that  the  plan  of  the  Synoptists  was  to 
make  no  mention  of  any  work  in  Judea,  till  they  came 
to  the  last  week.  Luke  does  tell  of  Jesus'  visit  to  the 
home  of  Mary  and  Martha;  but  he  hides  the  fact  that 
they  dwelt  in  Bethany  (10:  38).  Why  this  plan  was 
adopted  we  can  only  explain  in  part.  There  was  so 
much  that  might  be  told,  and  so  little  that  could  be 
told ;  the  work  in  Judea  was  so  unfruitful ;  the  account 
of  the  last  week  was  given  so  fully, — these  are  sug- 
gestions of  an  explanation.  When  we  realize  that  if 
John  had  not  written,  we  should  know  nothing  about 
the  raising  of  Lazarus  or  about  most  of  the  other 
miracles  related  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  it  sets  us  think- 
ing of  the  "  many  other  signs  "  not  recorded  in  any 
Gospel  (John  20:  30),  which  would  be  so  precious  had 
they  been  preserved. 

6.   The  Last  Journey  to  Jerusalem. 

^  The  increased  danger  caused  by  the  raising  of 
Lazarus  made  Jesus  withdraw  this  time  not  across  the 
Jordan  but  into  complete  retirement.  He  went  with 
the  Twelve  to  Ephraim,  which  is  usually  thought  to 
have  been  a  small  town  about  five  miles  east  of  Bethel, 
"near  to  the  wilderness"  (John  11:54).  His  stay 
here  was  only  a  few  weeks  at  the  utmost.  The  feast 
of  the  Passover  in  29  a.d.  came  about  the  middle  of 
March.  When  the  time  drew  near,  and  the  highways 
along  the  Jordan,  plainly  visible  from  His  retreat,  were 


THE  PERAEAN  MINISTRY  347 

filled  with  pilgrims  bound  for  Jerusalem,  Jesus  came 
down  from  the  hills  with  His  disciples,  and  joined 
them.  They  journeyed  to  Jericho  where  two  impor- 
tant incidents  occurred.  One  was  the  conversion  of 
Zacchaeus,  a  chief  publican,  which  is  noteworthy  as 
being  one  of  the  few  instances  where  Jesus  is  reported 
to  have  wrought  the  kind  of  work  which  His  disciples 
later  on  were  to  accomplish  continually.  Here  was  a 
social  outcast,  sought  out  by  Him,  convicted  of  sin, 
showing  sincere  penitence  by  reparation  of  his  wrong- 
doing, and  entering  with  joy  upon  a  new  life.  It  was 
a  spiritual  miracle,  far  more  wonderful  than  any 
physical  one;  and  it  was  of  the  kind  that  Jesus  had  in 
mind  when  He  said  to  His  disciples  after  the  Last  Sup- 
per, "  He  that  believeth  on  me,  the  works  that  I  do 
shall  he  do  also ;  and  greater  works  than  these  shall  he 
do,  because  I  go  unto  the  Father"  (John  14:12), 
The  other  incident  was  the  healing  of  the  blind  beggar, 
Bartimaeus,  as  he  sat  by  the  wayside.  It  was  done 
in  the  presence  of  a  crowd  of  pilgrims,  and  aroused 
much  excitement.  Jesus  had  apparently  been  forced 
into  hiding  through  fear  of  the  rulers,  and  it  was 
debated  whether  He  would  dare  come  to  the  feast 
(John  11:56);  now,  appearing  most  unexpectedly. 
He  places  Himself  at  the  head  of  these  Peraean  and 
Galilean  pilgrims,  and  heals  the  blind  man  who  hails 
Him  as  "  the  son  of  David,"  i.e.,  the  Messianic  king. 
Nothing  could  more  quickly  kindle  their  hope  that  at 
last  He  was  going  to  claim  for  Himself  the  throne  of 
His  great  ancestor,  and  drive  the  Romans  from  the 
sacred  land.  This  miracle  helps  to  explain  the  "  swell- 
ing tide  of  popular  enthusiasm "  which  reached  its 
height  at  the  triumphal  entry.  Keim,  as  we  have 
noticed,  though  he  usually  rejects  miracles,  accepts  this 


S48  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

one  because  the  course  of  later  events  is  inexplicable 
without  it. 
-T^  From  Jericho,  Jesus  went  on  to  Bethany,  a  distance 

of  about  fifteen  miles,  and  an  ascent  of  nearly  three 
thousand  feet.  John  says  that  Jesus  arrived  there  "  six 
days  before  the  Passover"  (12:  i),  namely,  on  Sat- 
urday, if  the  Passover  came, — as  we  shall  see  reason 
to  think  it  did, — on  Friday  of  the  following  week. 
Many  scholars  hold  that  Jesus  would  not  travel  on 
Saturday, — the  Jewish  Sabbath ;  and  so  they  make  the 
day  of  His  arrival  Friday,  and  use  this  statement  of 
John  as  an  argument  that  the  Passover  was  on  Thurs- 
day. But  He  was  not  strict  in  Sabbath  observance; 
and  a  short  journey  on  the  Sabbath  was  allowed  even 
by  the  most  strict.  If  He  had  come  up  with  the  pilgrims 
on  Friday,  it  would  have  been  hard  to  avoid  a  trium- 
phal entry  on  that  day;  for  they  were  greatly  excited 
by  what  He  had  done  in  Jericho.  It  is  simpler  to 
suppose  that  He  allowed  the  pilgrims  to  leave  Him 
behind,  thinking  He  planned  to  spend  the  Sabbath  at 
Jericho;  and  then,  later  in  the  day,  He  started  with 
the  Twelve,  spent  the  night  at  some  point  on  the  road, 
and  came  to  Bethany  early  on  Saturday.  This  would 
secure  for  Him  one  quiet  day,  the  last  possible,  with 
His  friends ;  for  the  news  of  His  arrival  would  not  be 
sent  to  Jerusalem  until  the  Sabbath  was  ended. 

His  friends  in  Bethany  showed  their  joy  at  His  com- 
ing by  a  feast  held  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper, — 
whoever  he  may  have  been.  Probably  this  was  on  the 
afternoon  of  Saturday;  for  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  with 
all  its  restrictions,  was  a  day  specially  marked  by 
feasting.  It  was  here  that  Jesus  was  anointed  by  Mary. 
The  incident  is  told  to  explain  the  later  conduct  of 
Judas,  and  to  record  Mary's  prophetic  act  and  Jesus' 


THE  PERAEAN  MINISTRY  249 

notable  words  about  it.  That  Jesus  by  going  to  Jeru- 
salem would  be  exposed  to  the  greatest  peril  was 
known  to  Mary  through  her  many  friends  in  the  city ; 
and  that  He  was  ready  to  lay  down  His  life  in  ful- 
filment of  His  mission  was  a  teaching  she  had  compre- 
hended when  others  failed  to  do  so.  The  puzzling 
words,  "  Let  her  alone : — that  she  might  keep  it  against 
the  day  of  my  burial  "  (John  12  :  6),  perhaps  indicate 
that  this  ointment  had  been  purchased  by  her  with  the 
thought  that  soon  she  might  need  it  for  His  burial, 
though  now  she  seized  the  unexpected  opportunity  to 
offer  it  while  He  still  was  alive.  Mark,  whom  Matthew 
follows,  does  not  mention  Mary  by  name,  and  says 
that  the  ointment  was  poured  upon  the  head  of  Jesus, 
David  Smith  has  an  interesting  explanation  of  these 
variations.  He  adopts  the  old  theory  that  Mary  of 
Bethany  was  Mary  Magdalene,  and  that  one  chapter  in 
her  history  is  given  in  Luke  7 :  37  f ., — the  story  of  the 
harlot  who  anointed  Christ's  feet  and  wiped  them  with 
the  hair  of  her  head.  And  he  thinks  that  now,  saved 
by  Christ  and  dwelling  once  more  at  home,  she  showed 
her  grateful  remembrance  by  repeating  the  former  act. 
Peter  in  telling  the  story  of  the  feast,  which  Mark 
reproduces,  would  hide  all  this,  partly  to  shield  Mary, 
but  still  more  to  avoid  the  base  slanders  that  might 
arise  if  he  told  of  Jesus'  loving  intimacy  with  a  woman 
who  had  been  what  Mary  once  was.  So  he  told  only  of 
anointing  the  head  (a  usual  act),  and  omitted  the  wip- 
ing with  her  hair,  since  to  appear  in  public  with  loose 
hair  was  a  well-known  mark  of  a  harlot.  Still  he  did 
not  succeed  entirely  in  hiding  the  matter,  for  he  said 
that  the  Twelve  or  some  of  the  guests  "  had  indigna- 
tion among  themselves  " — and  "  murmured  against 
her," — a  much  stronger  feeling  than  would  be  aroused 


250  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

by  mere  extravagance,  but  one  appropriate  to  an  act 
that  advertised  a  shameful  past  history.  All  this  is 
ingenious;  but  there  really  is  nothing  to  identify  Mary 
Magdalene  with  the  woman  who  was  a  sinner;  and  if 
there  were,  we  would  hesitate  much  to  suppose  that 
she  was  Mary  of  Bethany.  Still  we  note  that,  if  the 
identification  with  Mary  Magdalene  is  correct,  she 
seems  to  have  been  the  foremost  of  those  who  watched 
by  the  cross  as  Jesus  died;  and  she  was  the  leader  of 
those  who  first  came  to  the  tomb  on  Easter  morning  to 
care  for  the  body  of  her  Lord  (Mark  i6:  i). 


XVI 

THE  PASSION  WEEK 

T?  ACH  of  the  four  Gospels  has  a  very  full  account 
■*— '  of  the  closing  week  of  Jesus'  life;  it  forms  nearly 
one-third  of  the  whole  story.  This  is  natural,  because 
it  is  the  most  impressive  part,  and  would  be  specially 
remembered  in  Jerusalem  where  the  oral  gospel  origi- 
nated; and  also  because  it  is  the  most  important  part, 
and  was  emphasized  by  the  apostles  in  their  evangelistic 
preaching  ( I  Cor.  1 5  :  3  f . ) .  We  can  arrange  the 
incidents  by  days  with  considerable  certainty;  the 
nights  seem  to  have  been  passed  in  the  open  on  the 
Mount  pi  Olives,  perhaps  in  the  vicinity  of  Bethany 
(Mark  11 :  11,  19),  perhaps  in  Gethsemane  (Luke  21 : 
37;  John  18:  2).  It  was  not  safe  for  Jesus  to  stay  in 
the  city  nor  even  in  the  house  of  a  friend  at  Bethany. 
His  enemies  were  seeking  to  arrest  Him  away  from 
the  multitude;  and  there  were  plenty  of  spies  who 
would  report  His  lodging-place.  ^ 

I.    The  Triumphal  Entry, — Sunday. 

The  triumphal  entry  should  be  compared  with  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  when  the  Galileans  would 
make  Jesus  king.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that 
He  deliberately  planned  a  public  demonstration  in  the 
one  case  any  more  than  in  the  other.  The  multitude 
who  had  come  up  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem  on  Friday 
brought  the  news  that  the  son  of  David,  whose  cure 

251 


252  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

of  Bartimaeus  they  had  witnessed,  was  on  His  way  to 
the  feast.  In  return  they  were  told  of  the  miracle  of 
Lazarus,  and  of  the  Sanhedrin's  decision  that  Jesus 
should  be  put  to  death.  When  word  came  that  He  al- 
ready had  reached  Bethany,  some  hurried  out  to  the 
little  town  that  same  Saturday  evening,  eager  to  see 
Lazarus  as  well  as  Jesus  (John  12:9).  The  excite- 
ment increased,  fed  by  the  report  that  now  the  chief 
priests  were  also  plotting  the  death  of  Lazarus.  And 
on  Sunday  afternoon  a  crowd  of  the  pilgrims  set  out 
for  Bethany  to  be  the  body-guard  of  Jesus  and  bring 
Him  into  the  city.  Meanwhile,  other  pilgrims  who 
left  Jericho  early  this  same  morning,  and  previous  to 
leaving  heard  that  Jesus  had  gone  in  advance  of  them 
to  claim  His  throne,  were  now  filing  by  Bethany.  The 
unconcerted  meeting  of  these  two  bodies  formed  the 
multitude  that  thronged  the  road  before  and  behind 
Him  as  he  made  His  entry.  Notice  that  they  were 
mainly  Galileans  and  Peraeans;  and  their  action  had 
more  of  a  local  than  of  a  national  character.  They 
would  boldly  escort  the  King  of  Israel  to  the  city,  set 
Him  in  defiance  before  His  Jewish  and  Roman  ene- 
mies, and  wait  confidently  for  the  miracles  by  which 
He  would  establish  Himself  upon  the  throne.  This 
was  their  programme,  so  far  as  their  hasty  action  had 
a  programme;  and  in  carrying  it  out,  they  placed  before 
Jesus  again  one  of  the  temptations  of  the  wilderness. 
When  the  people  on  the  shores  of  the  lake  sought  to 
make  Jesus  king,  He  strenuously  opposed  them;  now 
He  made  no  resistance.  He  was  in  truth  their  king; 
let  them  hail  Him  as  "  the  son  of  David  "  here  in  the 
sacred  city.  Nevertheless,  there  must  be  no  misunder- 
standing what  kind  of  a  king  He  claimed  to  be, — one 
who,  as  Zechariah  had  foretold,  was  "  just  and  having 


THE  PASSION  WEEK  253 

salvation,  lowly  and  riding-  upon  an  ass,  even  upon  a 
colt,  the  foal  of  an  ass  "  (Zech.  9:9).  Whatever  false 
expectations  the  multitude  might  cherish  as  they  cried 
"  Hosanna !  Blessed  be  the  King  of  Israel  that  cometh 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  nothing  in  His  words  or 
manner  should  seem  to  support  them.  This  explains 
why  He  sent  two  of  His  disciples  to  borrow  from  some 
unnamed  friend  the  humble  beast,  the  symbol  of  peace, 
on  which  He  rode;  after  the  manner  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment prophets  He  would  act  out  His  message.  Never- 
theless, as  John  points  out  (12:  16),  even  the  Twelve 
did  fail  to  understand  the  significance  of  His  act;  they 
were  so  filled  with  anticipation  of  the  overthrow  of 
their  enemies,  that  they  failed  to  perceive  they  were 
bringing  in  the  Prince  of  Peace. 

The  triumphal  entry  had  different  meanings  for  the 
different  actors  engaged  in  it.  For  the  enemies  of  4- 
Jesus  it  was  a  revelation  of  His  power  and  their  own 
impotence.  As  they  looked  forth  from  the  city  walls, 
and  watched  the  throng  escorting  Him  around  the 
slope  of  Olivet,  the  Pharisees  said  to  one  another,  "  Be- 
hold, how  ye  prevail  nothing:  lo,  the  world  is  gone 
after  him"  (John  12:  19).  For  the  people,  who  by  ,\, 
spontaneous  impulse  gave  Him  this  royal  reception, 
it  was,  though  they  knew  it  not,  a  manifestation  of 
the  same  spirit  that,  a  few  decades  later,  would  cause 
the  horrible  war  against  the  Romans  and  against  each 
other,  ending  in  the  utter  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
A  vision  of  its  impending  doom  filled  the  mind  of 
Jesus  when  He  came  to  a  point  in  the  road  where  the 
beautiful  city  stood  revealed ;  and  this  forced  from  His 
lips  a  wailing  cry  and  words  of  lamentation  which 
broke  in  strangely  upon  the  shouts  of  rejoicing  (Luke 
19 :  41  f.).    For  the  disciples  it  was  the  sudden  realiza-     - 


254>  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST, 

tion  of  their  fondest  dream.  Almost  as  if  by  magic 
all  the  terrors  that  had  appalled  them  (Mark  lo:  32) 
were  dissipated;  the  hatred  of  Jerusalem  seemed 
changed  to  glad  recognition;  the  years  of  lonely  wan- 
dering, hardship,  contempt  and  struggle  were  ended; 
joy  thrilled  their  hearts;  triumph  was  sure  at  last; 
x^  the  kingdom  was  their  Lord's.  But  for  Jesus  Himself 
the  entry  was  not  a  triumph  but  a  defeat,  not  glory 
but  humiliation, — a  fresh  revelation  of  the  failure  of 
His  ministry.  He  had  failed  to  win  these  people, 
though  they  seemed  so  wholly  devoted.  Today  they 
were  shouting  "  Hosanna !  "  because  they  thought  He 
was  about  to  satisfy  their  greed  for  power  and  thirst 
for  vengeance ;  tomorrow,  when  they  found  He  would 
do  none  of  these  things,  they  would  even  more  loudly 
cry,  "Crucify,  crucify!" 

On  wound  the  procession,  across  the  valley  of  the 
Kedron,  up  to  the  gates,  through  the  streets;  and  at 
its  coming  all  the  city  was  thrown  into  commotion. 
Eager  faces  looked  forth  from  the  housetops;  excited 
questions  passed  from  lip  to  lip :  "  Who  is  this  ?  "  they 
asked ;  and  the  answer  came  back,  "  This  is  the 
prophet,  Jesus  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee  "  (Matt.  21 : 
lo-ii).  Still  onward  it  moved  to  the  courts  of  the 
temple, — the  proper  place  for  the  Messianic  king  to 
make  a  royal  proclamation.  Then  the  excited  multi- 
tude waited  His  order  to  drive  out  the  Roman  guards, 
overwhelm  Pilate  in  his  palace,  seize  the  city  and  de- 
clare the  yoke  of  Rome  broken.  A  single  word  would 
have  set  a  revolution  in  motion;  but  He  would  not 
speak  the  word.  He  could  not  teach  them  in  their 
excited  state;  to  work  miracles  would  but  increase  the 
excitement;  there  really  was  nothing  He  could  do, 
and  the  day  was  drawing  towards  its  close ;  so  after  a 


THE  PASSION  WEEK  ft56 

calm  survey  of  all  things  (Mark  ii:ii),  He  went 
back  across  the  Mount  of  Olives  towards  Bethany, 
leaving  them  disgusted  with  His  seeming  cowardice 
and  weakness. 

2.    The  Day  of  Suspense, — Monday. 

When  Jesus  led  the  Twelve  out  unto  Bethany  on 
Sunday  evening,  they  doubtless  found  shelter  and  food 
at  some  friend's  home;  but  He  spent  the  night  alone 
on  the  hillside  in  communion  with  God.  We  infer  this 
from  His  practice  after  days  of  great  spiritual  stress, 
and  from  the  fact  that  "  on  the  morrow  when  they 
were  come  out  from  Bethany,  he  hungered  "  (Mark 
II :  12).  The  story  of  the  cursing  of  the  fig  tree  that 
morning  is  a  puzzling  one.  In  an  unusually  favorable 
location  a  fig  tree  might  put  forth  leaves  thus  early 
in  the  year;  and,  since  the  fruit-buds  of  a  fig  tree 
develop  before  the  leaf-buds  start,  a  tree  thus  having 
leaves  ought  to  show  green  figs.  But  that  Jesus 
expected  to  find  edible  figs  fully  two  months  before 
the  very  earliest  ripe  figs  are  due  is  hard  to  believe. 
Perhaps  the  expectation  is  simply  an  inference  of  the 
apostles  from  His  investigation  of  the  tree,  since  they 
knew  He  had  fasted  all  night.  The  curse  upon  the 
tree  was  pronounced,  not  because  there  was  no  ripe 
fruit,  but  because  there  was  no  fruit  whatever, — • 
''  nothing  but  leaves."  The  pretentious  tree  was  put- 
ting all  its  energy  into  leaf-bearing  instead  of  fruit, 
and  deserved  the  sentence  of  doom.  Many  would 
explain  the  whole  incident  as  a  parable  transformed 
into  an  actual  event;  and  they  point  to  the  fact  that 
Luke  omits  it,  but  gives  a  parable  of  a  barren 
fig  tree  (13:6-9).  Certainly  it  has  the  value  of  a 
parable;  though  the  evangelist  does  not  seem  to  per- 


-r 


256  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

ceive  this,  and  treats  it  rather  as  a  marvel.  The  fig 
tree,  through  some  special  advantage  of  location,  had 
pushed  far  beyond  its  fellows,  and  by  its  foliage 
promised  fruit  but  was  barren.  This  fitly  typified 
Israel.  And  the  doom  of  both  was  destruction  because 
of  such  profession  without  performance.  The  main 
objection  to  taking  the  incident  as  only  a  parable  is 
the  teaching  about  the  power  of  faith,  which  follows 
it  and  would  not  be  called  forth  by  a  parable;  but 
Matthew  and  Luke  give  similar  teachings  in  other  con- 
nections, and  this  may  originally  have  belonged  else- 
where. 

The  Synoptic  gospels  put  the  cleansing  of  the  tem- 
ple on  this  morning.  That  the  old  abuses  had  reap- 
peared can  hardly  be  questioned;  but  that  Jesus  should 
repeat  the  act  with  which  He  opened  His  Judean  min- 
istry is  improbable.  It  would  now  be  simply  a  useless 
attempt  to  purify  that  upon  which  He  had  pronounced 
sentence  of  destruction;  the  traders  would  not  be 
taken  off  their  guard  a  second  time;  and  it  would 
involve  a  needless  danger  of  arrest  just  when  He  was 
moving  with  caution  that  He  might  eat  the  Passover 
with  His  disciples  before  the  end  should  come.  Per- 
haps the  reason  why  the  Synoptists  tell  of  the  cleansing 
now  is  because,  having  mentioned  no  previous  visit  of 
Jesus  to  Jerusalem,  they  have  had  no  opportunity 
to  tell  it  earlier,  and  the  story  must  be  told  to  explain 
the  testimony  of  the  false  witnesses  at  His  trial  and 
the  taunts  of  those  who  passed  by  His  cross  (Mark 
14:58;  15:29).  Yet,  we  notice  that  they  omit  the 
special  words  (John  2:19)  which  were  garbled  to 
form  a  charge  against  Him. 

Monday  was  a  day  of  suspense  rather  than  of  con- 
flict.   The  rulers  were  anxiously  waiting  the  action  of 


THE  PASSION  WEEK  «67 

Jesus  and  the  people;  but  Jesus  quietly  took  up  His 
usual  work  of  teaching  and  healing  in  the  temple 
court,  and  the  people,  though  still  attentive  and  ex- 
pectant, showed  no  special  approval  of  what  He  was 
doing, — it  was  not  what  they  wanted.  Already  the 
enthusiasm  of  yesterday  had  disappeared;  the  children, 
remembering  it,  raised  again  the  cry  of  "  Hosanna  to 
the  son  of  David";  but  no  older  person  joined  with 
them,  and  the  priests  gained  courage  to  protest.  The 
enemies  of  Jesus  had  not  yet  recovered  from  the  con- 
sternation of  the  triumphal  entry;  but  when  He  again 
retired  to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  they  felt  that  the 
danger  of  a  great  popular  movement  in  His  favor 
was  ended. 

3.   The  Day  of  Conflict, — ^Tuesday. 

By  Tuesday  the  rulers  were  ready  to  confront  Jesus  T* 
squarely.  They  began  the  contest  as  soon  as  He 
appeared  in  the  temple,  and  carried  it  on  unceasingly 
through  the  day.  Monday  had  shown  them  that  He 
would  continue  His  customary  work  of  teaching.  In 
this  work  He  must  be  met  and  decoyed  into  some  state- 
ment that  would  justify  His  arrest  and  condemnation, 
or  at  least  would  completely  alienate  the  sympathies 
of  the  people. 

First,  the  representatives  of  the  Sanhedrin  came  t* 
with  the  direct  question,  "  By  what  authority  doest 
thou  these  things?  or  who  gave  thee  this  authority  to 
do  these  things?  "  (Mark  11 :  28).  This  called  the  at- 
tention of  all  to  the  fact  that  the  Sanhedrin  was  the 
proper  body  to  pass  judgment  upon  Messianic  claims. 
If  Jesus  refused  to  recognize  this,  His  refusal  would 
prejudice  the  people  against  Him;  but  if  He  acknowl- 
edged the  authority  of  the  Sanhedrin,  then  He  must 


258  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

submit,  when  it  proceeded  to  pronounce  Him  an  im- 
postor. He  escaped  the  snare  by  demanding  that  first 
they  answer  a  question  of  His,  "  The  baptism  of  John, 
was  it  from  heaven  or  from  men?"  Though  it  put 
them  in  a  dilemma,  and  forced  them  to  retire  in  con- 
fusion, saying,  "  We  know  not,"  the  demand  was  a 
fair  one.  Before  the  Sanhedrin  passed  upon  the 
claims  of  the  Messiah,  it  should  pass  upon  those  of 
His  forerunner;  if  it  was  not  competent  to  do  this, 
it  certainly  was  not  competent  to  do  the  greater  thing. 
Moreover,  Christ's  response  went  to  the  very  root  of 
their  unbelief.  If  they  were  honest  seekers  after  truth, 
they  would  have  accepted  John,  even  as  now  they 
would  accept  Him  whom  John  foretold. 

Next,  with  many  hypocritical  words  of  compliment, 
-^  endeavoring  in  this  way  to  throw  Him  off  His  giiard, 
the  Pharisees  and  Herodians  asked  Him  to  act  as 
umpire  in  one  of  their  standing  disputes,  "  Is  it  lawful 
to  give  tribute  unto  Caesar?"  If  He  said  "No," 
the  Herodians,  who  favored  Caesar,  would  denounce 
Him  to  the  Roman  authorities ;  and  He  would  receive 
severe  punishment  as  one  who  stirred  up  sedition.  If 
He  said  "  Yes,"  the  Pharisees  would  use  this  with  the 
people  as  positive  proof  that  He  was  not  the  Messiah. 
His  well-known  answer  does  not  (as  many  assert) 
lay  down  the  principle  of  the  separation  of  church 
and  state.  It  simply  points  out  that  so  long  as  the 
Jews  avail  themselves  of  Caesar's  benefits, — his  coin- 
age, his  army  and  the  rest, — they  are  stopped  from 
refusing  to  pay  Caesar  his  dues;  and  then  it  raises 
the  thought  to  the  higher  level  of  the  benefits  we 
receive  from  God  and  our  dues  to  Him.  They  had 
asked  a  petty  question;  they  received  a  profound 
reply.     "  And  they  were  not  able  to  take  hold  of  the 


THE  PASSION  WEEK  259 

saying  before  the  people;  and  they  marvelled  at  his 
answer,  and  held  their  peace"  (Luke  20:26). 

Now  the  Sadducees  came  forward  to  try  a  bout  with 
Him,  Ecclesiastical  and  political  weapons  had  been 
used  in  vain;  they  would  break  a  lance  theological. 
Jesus  and  the  Pharisees  taught  the  doctrine  of  a  resur- 
rection, which  they  denied.  They  would  make  both 
Him  and  the  Pharisees  laughing-stocks  by  ridiculing 
the  teaching.  Accordingly  they  propounded  one  of 
their  pet  problems.  "  Suppose  that  seven  brothers  have 
in  succession  the  same  wife, — in  the  resurrection  whose 
shall  she  be?  Each  of  the  seven  has  equal  claims; 
will  she  sit  in  Abraham's  bosom  surrounded  by  this 
circle  of  husbands, — the  envy  of  all  beholders, — or 
how  shall  the  fortunate  possessor  of  the  family  heir- 
loom be  determined?  "  The  question  was  intentionally 
coarse,  scoffing  and  calculated  to  raise  a  laugh  from  the 
crowd.  Christ's  answer  was  on  an  entirely  different 
plane.  Disregarding  the  special  problem  as  frivolous, 
He  pointed  out  that  their  difficulties  concerning  the 
resurrection  arose  from  their  gross,  earthly  concep- 
tions of  the  heavenly  life.  And  their  great  argument 
that  a  future  life  was  not  revealed  to  Moses  was  false. 
When  God  said,  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  of 
Isaac  and  of  Jacob,"  the  very  form  of  the  statement 
showed  that  the  patriarchs  still  live.  God's  love  is  the 
seal  of  immortality;  for  He  certainly  will  not  allow 
death  to  rob  Him  of  His  own.  From  the  eternal 
nature  of  God,  the  relationship  He  forms  with  man 
must  be  eternal.  The  answer  not  only  silenced  the 
questioners,  but  by  its  novelty  and  grandeur  called 
forth  a  murmur  of  applause  from  the  bystanders. 
And  one  thoughtful  hearer  was  impelled  to  ask  in  all 
seriousness  the  opinion  of  Jesus,  as  of  a  teacher  whose 


-^ 


260  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

judgment  was  most  valuable,  concerning  the  problem 
often  and  earnestly  debated,  "  What  sort  of  a  com- 
mandment is  the  first  of  all?  "  (Mark  12  :  28). 

Thus  each  of  these  attacks  failed;  and  yet  indirectly 
^^  they  accomplished  their  purpose.  They  made  it  in- 
creasingly evident  to  the  people  that  Jesus  was  not 
the  Messiah  they  desired.  Above  all,  His  final  refusal 
to  countenance  a  revolt  against  the  Roman  authorities 
could  not  be  forgiven.  "  His  fate  was  sealed. 
Deserted  by  the  people.  He  would  certainly  fall  into 
the  hands  of  His  enemies;  from  that  very  day  the 
populace  would  turn  against  Him  "  (Weiss). 

Jesus'  own  part  in  the  day's  conflict  was  not  merely 
to  stand  on  the  defensive;  never  was  He  more  bold 
and  terrible  in  His  direct  attack.  In  return  for  the 
problems  given  Him,  He  propounded  the  problem 
of  David's  relation  to  the  Messiah  as  set  forth  in 
Psalm  no;  and  forced  the  Pharisees  to  confess  they 
could  not  solve  it.  He  told  his  sternest  parables, — 
those  of  the  two  sons,  the  wicked  husbandmen,  the 
wedding  guests ;  and  He  told  them  in  such  a  way  that 
His  enemies  could  not  fail  to  understand  He  was  speak- 
ing of  them.  And  finally  He  broke  forth  into  denun- 
ciation of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  pronouncing  upon 
them  a  series  of  woes  more  appalling  than  the  severest 
imprecations  of  the  old  prophets.  Possibly  these  were 
not  all  spoken  at  this  time,  but  are  grouped  in  the 
source  from  which  Matthew  took  them.  They  reveal 
a  side  of  Christ's  nature  that  we  are  prone  to  ignore 
in  our  emphasis  of  His  gentleness,  patience  and  love. 
We  think  of  Him  as  the  Lamb  of  God;  here  we  are 
forced  to  remember,  what  too  often  we  forget,  that 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  "  the  wrath  of  the  Lamb," — 
a  wrath  made  more  significant  because  of  the  love 


THE  PASSION  WEEK  261 

which  permeates  it.  From  these  words  we  gtt,  says 
Muirhead,  "  the  impression  that  to  Jesus'  mind  there 
was  no  sin  in  the  world  worth  speaking  about  compared 
with  the  sin  of  His  own  nation.  They  bear  the  fate 
and  the  guilt  of  the  rest  of  the  world.  They  bar  the 
entrance  of  others  into  the  kingdom.  Children  of 
hell,  they  draw  their  proselytes  into  closer  folds  of 
flame.  Murderers  and  children  of  murderers  they 
bear  the  guilt  of  all  the  '  righteous  blood  shed  upon 
the  earth.'  And  Jesus  did  not  speak  of  these  things 
as  a  mere  speculator,  or  even  as  a  prophet  like  Jeremiah 
in  whose  bones  the  word  burned.  He  spoke  as  one 
who  saw  and  felt  the  power  of  murder  and  hell  let 
loose  upon  Himself." 

At  the  close  of  this  day  we  may  put  the  request  of 
the  Greeks, — the  only  incident  John  has  recorded  of 
all  that  took  place  between  the  triumphal  entry  and 
the  Last  Supper.  It  was  not  unusual  for  Gentiles  to 
come  and  offer  sacrifices  at  the  temple.  Indeed,  a 
daily  sacrifice  was  offered  "  in  behalf  of  the  emperor 
and  the  Roman  people,"  for  which  the  emperor  paid. 
There  were  certain  Greeks  now  among  the  temple 
worshippers;  and  to  Philip  they  stated  their  desire  to 
meet  Jesus,  evidently  not  from  curiosity  but  from  a 
craving  for  His  intimate  teaching.  Such  an  approach 
at  such  an  hour  stirred  Jesus  most  deeply.  It  was  the 
voice  of  the  great  outer  world  calling  for  His  salva- 
tion. To  grant  these  Greeks  an  audience  now  was  out 
of  the  question ;  the  crowd  and  the  hostile  atmosphere 
made  quiet,  earnest  conversation  impossible.  More 
than  this,  the  message  they  needed  was  not  yet  ready ; 
the  gospel,  which  would  be  "  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth, — to  the  Jew 
first  and  also  to  the  Greek"  (Rom.  i :  i6),  must  be 


262  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

completed  by  His  death.  What  the  request  of  the 
Greeks  signified  to  Jesus  is  indicated  by  His  answer, 
"  The  hour  is  come  that  the  Son  of  Man  should  be 
glorified ;  verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  a  grain 
of  wheat  fall  into  the  earth  and  die,  it  abideth  by  itself 
alone;  but  if  it  die,  it  beareth  much  fruit"  (John 
12:23!),  The  cry  of  the  world,  "We  would  see 
Jesus,"  He  recognized  to  be  the  summons  to  the  cross. 
The  passage  which  follows  (John  I2:27f.)  be- 
longs to  the  inmost  spiritual  history  of  Jesus.  As 
John  omits  all  account  of  the  institution  of  the 
Eucharist  but  places  a  sacramental  teaching  in  the  syna- 
gogue at  Capernaum  (6:35  f.),  so  also  he  omits  all 
account  of  Gethsemane  but  describes  at  this  hour  a 
similar  experience.  The  parallel  between  the  agony 
in  the  Garden  and  the  agony  here  is  most  exact :  "  My 
soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful  unto  death.  .  .  .  Father, 
remove  this  cup  from  me.  .  ,  .  Not  what  I  will,  but 
what  thou  wilt  "  (Mark  14:  34-36),  and  "  Now  is  my 
soul  troubled.  .  .  .  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour. 
.  .  .  Father,  glorify  thy  name  "  (John  12  :  27)  ;  and 
the  disciples  in  the  Garden  who  slumber  oblivious,  or 
drowsily  listen  to  the  prayer  of  their  Master,  are  like 
the  bystanders  here  who  with  various  degrees  of  recep- 
tiveness  hear  the  voice  from  heaven.  It  does  not  fol- 
low, however,  that  one  of  the  two  accounts  must  be 
rejected.  In  the  ministry  of  Jesus  there  must  have 
been  more  than  one  hour,  when  in  anguish  of  spirit  He 
cried  to  the  Father  and  received  a  response  that 
brought  strength  and  peace.  The  voice  from  heaven 
by  which  the  answer  was  now  revealed  to  others  is 
the  same  as  that  at  the  baptism  and  the  transfigura- 
tion ;  and  the  explicit  statement  that  to  some  it  seemed 
to  be  only  thunder  and  to  others  the  voice  of  an  angel 


THE  PASSION  WEEK  263 

speaking  an  unknown  tongue  confirms  the  conclusion 
that  here  and  in  the  previous  instances  the  message 
was  to  the  soul  and  not  to  the  outward  ear.  This 
revelation  of  the  spiritual  attitude  of  Jesus  as  He 
approached  death  was  for  the  sake  of  those,  a  handful 
of  disciples,  who  would  be  helped  by  it  (John  12  :  30). 
Nevertheless,  neither  the  transfiguration  nor  this  hour 
gave  them  a  message  sufficient  to  support  their  faith 
when  the  horror  of  a  crucified  Messiah  was  squarely 
before  them. 

Thus  ended  this  great  day  of  conflict  in  which  Jesus 
again  and  again  had  met  and  mastered  His  enemies. 
But  His  words  of  bitter  condemnation  of  them  were 
likewise  words  of  sentence  upon  Himself.  They  swept 
away  all  possibility  of  reconciliation,  all  feeling  of 
pity  on  the  part  of  those  denounced.  In  the  rage 
excited,  all  else  was  forgotten  save  the  thirst  for 
blood.  Jesus  must  die  at  once ;  and  the  more  horrible 
and  ignominious  His  death,  the  sweeter  would  be  the 
revenge  for  such  insults.  It  was  with  full  recognition 
of  this  fact  that  He  left  the  city  at  the  close  of  the  day. 
Yet,  as  He  looked  at  the  future,  His  thought  was  for 
His  disciples  rather  than  for  Himself.  And  this 
shaped  His  discourse  that  Tuesday  evening  as  He  sat 
with  them  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  over  against  the 
temple,  and  gave  them  instruction  and  warning  for  the 
days  when  they  must  bear  witness  and  meet  tribulation 
without  Him. 

4.   The  Day  of  Retirement, — ^Wednesday. 

It  seems  probable  that  Jesus  remained  in  seclusion 
from  Tuesday  night  until  the  supper  on  Thursday 
evening.  Both  His  friends  and  His  foes  were  now 
in  such  a  state  of  mind  that  further  work  in  Jeru- 


$64  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

saleni  would  be  unprofitable,  if  not  impossible.  And, 
though  the  favor  of  the  multitude  had  hitherto  pro- 
tected Him  in  daytime,  special  care  must  be  taken  that 
nothing  might  prevent  His  eating  the  Passover  with 
the  Twelve.  Moreover,  He  needed  this  time  of  quiet, 
not  only  for  spiritual  preparation  for  what  was  to 
come,  but  even  for  physical  preparation.  The  strain 
of  Tuesday  had  been  tremendous ;  the  strain  of  Thurs- 
day night  would  be  far  greater;  He  must  have  an 
interval  of  rest.  How  and  where  He  spent  it,  we  are 
not  told. 

It  was  this  Wednesday  of  inactivity  that  gave  Judas 
the  opportunity  to  go  to  the  city  without  his  com- 
panions, and  seek  an  interview  with  the  enemies  of 
Jesus.  He  made  his  way  to  the  palace  of  Caiaphas, 
where  he  found  the  leaders  gathered  for  consultation 
as  to  how  they  could  bring  about  the  death  of  the 
man  who  had  denounced  them.  Assassination  was 
and  is  a  favorite  Oriental  method  of  removing  a 
powerful  enemy;  but  Jesus'  secrecy  and  the  body- 
guard of  the  Twelve  made  this  impossible.  If  He 
could  be  arrested,  it  might  be  easy  to  persuade  Pilate 
to  put  Him  to  death ;  but  an  open  arrest  was  likely  to 
cause  a  tumult,  because  the  friends  of  Jesus  would 
interfere;  and  a  secret  arrest  seemed  impossible,  be- 
cause Jesus  went  out  of  the  city  at  nightfall,  and  no 
one  knew  where  to  find  Him.  The  coming  of  Judas 
with  an  offer  to  betray  his  Master  removed  their  diffi- 
culties, and  made  their  hearts  glad  with  unholy  joy. 


XVII 
THE  LAST  SUPPER  AND  GETHSEMANE 

THE  public  ministry  began  with  a  feast,  at  which 
Jesus  was  a  guest, — the  supper  in  Cana;  it 
closed  with  a  feast,  at  which  He  was  the  host, — the 
supper  in  Jerusalem.  At  the  first  He  manifested 
to  His  disciples  His  glory  by  changing  water 
into  wine;  at  the  last  He  manifested  to  them  His 
grace  by  changing  wine  into  the  perpetual  sym- 
bol of  His  blood.  How  important  and  precious 
this  last  supper  was  to  Him  is  shown  by  His 
statement,  "With  desire  have  I  desired  to  eat  this 
Passover  with  you  before  I  suffer"  (Luke  22:15), 
which  hints  of  hours  when  He  feared  that  it  might 
be  impossible,  of  prayer  and  painstaking  preparation 
for  it.  The  desire  is  explained  when  we  consider 
what  "  the  Lord's  Supper  "  has  been  to  the  Christian 
world.  The  history  of  the  sacrament  is  one  with  the 
history  of  Christian  faith  and  life.  Whenever  super- 
stition has  hedged  the  table  about  with  terror,  and 
ascribed  to  the  elements  magical  virtues, — whenever 
rationalism  has  degraded  the  sacrament  to  a  bit  of 
Oriental  symbolism,  an  interesting  historical  relic, — 
whenever  license  has  destroyed  the  reverence  of  com- 
municants, and  made  communion  a  trivial  matter,  the 
church  has  been  moribund  and  the  gospel  has  been  per- 
verted. And  a  return  to  the  simplicity  that  is  in 
Christ  to  the  faith  that  accepts  His  salvation,  and  to 

265 


266  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

soberness  of  Christian  living,  has  always  gone  hand  in 
hand  with  a  renewed  appreciation  of  the  value  of  the 
sacrament. 

I.    Was  the  Last  Supper  the  Passover? 

Jesus  ate  the  Last  Supper  with  His  disciples  on 
Thursday  evening,  and  was  crucified  on  Friday.  Such 
seems  to  be  the  clear  statement  of  the  evangelists; 
though  a  few  scholars,  accepting  Matthew  12 :  40  as  a 
prophecy  with  a  literal  fulfillment,  argue  that  Wednes- 
day evening  was  the  time  of  the  supper,  and  Thursday, 
the  crucifixion.  A  question  more  important  and  caus- 
ing much  more  division  of  opinion  is  whether  the 
regular  Jewish  Passover  meal  came  that  year  on  Thurs- 
day evening  or  on  Friday  evening, — in  other  words, 
was  the  supper  which  Jesus  ate  with  the  Twelve  on 
Thursday  evening  a  Passover  meal  or  not? 

The  Passover  was  the  oldest  of  the  Jewish  feasts; 
it  celebrated  the  deliverance  out  of  Egypt,  and  was 
also  a  feast  of  the  first  ripe  grain.  Strictly  speaking, 
it  lasted  only  one  day ; — but  it  was  followed  by  a  seven 
days'  "  feast  of  unleavened  bread,"  which  is  so  closely 
identified  with  it,  that  the  whole  eight  days  are  usually 
called  the  feast  of  the  Passover.  The  great  event  of 
the  feast  was  the  Passover  meal ;  and  the  main  feature 
of  this  meal  was  the  lamb,  which  must  be  brought  to  the 
temple,  and  killed  by  the  worshippers,  and  its  blood 
poured  before  the  altar  by  the  priests,  between  "  the 
two  evenings,"  i.e.,  between  the  beginning  of  the  sun's 
decline  and  sunset, — say  from  3:00  to  6:00  p.m., — on 
Nisan  14.  It  was  then  roasted  at  home,  and  must  be 
eaten  the  same  night  before  midnight.  This  night, 
according  to  Jewish  reckoning  which  makes  a  day 
begin  at  sunset,  would  be  the  beginning  of  Nisan  15. 


LAST  SUPPER  AND  GETHSEMANE     267 

The   company  must   be   sufficient   to   eat   the   whole 
lamb, — not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than  twenty  per- 
sons.    In  later  centuries  the  feast  was  minutely  regu- 
lated both  as  to  the  various  articles  of  food  and  the 
order  and  manner  of  eating  them;  but  we  are  not 
sure  that  these  regulations  existed  in  the  first  century. 
Was  the  supper  which  Jesus  ate  on  Thursday  evening 
this  Passover  meal  ?    The  question  interests  us  because 
it  is  involved  in  another  question  far  more  important, 
viz. :  Did  Jesus  at  a  Passover  meal  transform  the  Jew- 
ish feast  into  the  Christian  sacrament,  or  did  He  die  as 
the  Lamb  of  God  at  the  very  hour  when  the  Jews 
were  slaying  their  paschal  lambs  ?    It  might  seem  that 
the  answer  could  be  found  by  simply  turning  to  the 
calendar,  and  determining  whether  that  Thursday  eve- 
ning was  the  beginning  of  Nisan  14  or  of  Nisan  15. 
But  this  expedient  fails  us,  partly  because  we  are  not 
sure  of  the  year  when  Christ  died,  and  partly  be- 
cause,— even  if  we  agree  on  the  year  29  a.d., — ancient 
reckoning  of  time  was  so  uncertain  that  we  cannot  be 
sure  to  a  day  just  when  Nisan  15  of  that  year  came. 
Any  conclusion  has  to  be  based  wholly  upon  the  gospel 
record;  and,  on  the  surface,  the  account  of  the  Synop- 
tists  does  not  seem  to  agree  with  that  of  John. 

Taking  the  Synoptists  alone  we  should  conclude  that  -^ 
the  meal  was  the  Passover :  they  plainly  say  so  (Mark 
14:12,  14,  16  and  parallels).  Still  we  notice  that 
they  tell  of  acts  performed  between  Thursday  evening 
and  Friday  evening  that  are  forbidden  on  Nisan  15, 
which  was  treated  as  a  Sabbath  with  all  the  Sab- 
bath restrictions,  no  matter  on  what  day  of  the  week 
it  came.  E.g.,  the  temple  guard  and  Peter  carry  arms 
(Mark  14:  43,  50)  ;  Simon  of  Cyrene  comes  from  the 
country,  i.e.,  from  the  field  where  apparently  he  has 


268  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

been  working  (Mark  15:21);  Joseph  of  Arimathaea 
buys  a  linen  cloth  (Mark  15  :46)  ;  the  women  prepare 
spices  and  ointments  (Luke  23:56).  Above  all  it  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  members  of  the  Sanhedrin 
would  deliberately  desecrate  the  day  of  the  Passover 
by  giving  themselves  to  the  arrest,  trial  and  crucifixion 
of  any  one,  no  matter  what  the  provocation.  On  the 
other  hand,  from  the  acount  in  John  we  should  con- 
clude that  the  Last  Supper  was  on  the  evening  before 
the  Passover,  i.e.,  that  this  Thursday  evening  was  the 
beginning  of  Nisan  14  instead  of  Nisan  15.  He  ex- 
pressly dates  it  "  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover  " 
(13:1);  the  disciples  think  Judas  is  going  to  buy 
something  for  the  feast,  though  buying  and  selling 
would  be  debarred  on  the  Passover  ( 13  :  29)  ;  the  rulers 
shun  defilement  that  will  keep  them  from  eating  the 
Passover  (18:28);  compare  also  19:  14,  31. 

Various  ways  of  reconciling  the  Synoptists  and  John 
have  been  devised.  Formerly  the  tendency  was  to  fol- 
low the  Synoptists  in  regarding  the  evening  as  Nisan 
15;  now  it  is  rather  the  reverse.  Certainly  John 
ought  to  know ;  and  in  this,  as  in  some  other  instances 
(e.g.,  in  making  Christ's  ministry  begin  in  Judea), 
he  may  be  correcting  the  Synoptists.  May  it  not  be, 
however,  that  both  are  right,  owing  to  the  fact  that  it 
was  permissible  to  anticipate  the  regular  date  of  the 
Passover,  and  eat  the  meal  on  Nisan  14?  There  is  no 
record  of  such  permission;  but  it  would  seem  to  have 
been  absolutely  necessary,  Josephus  says  (Wars  6: 
9:3)  that,  a  few  years  later,  the  number  of  lambs  slain 
at  one  Passover  was  256,500.  If  at  the  temple  they 
killed  three  hundred  a  minute,  it  would  take  over  four- 
teen hours  to  dispose  of  this  number.  Undoubtedly 
Josephus  greatly  exaggerates;  but  we  see  that  in  any 


LAST  SUPPER  AND  GETHSEMANE     260 

case  the  time  of  killing  the  lambs  must  have  been 
extended  beyond  three  hours  of  one  afternoon.  So, 
too,  some  extension  of  time  must  be  allowed  to  pro- 
vide places  for  cooking  and  eating  the  meal.  We 
know  that  in  order  to  make  it  possible  to  keep  the  law 
requiring  the  lamb  to  be  eaten  in  Jerusalem,  the  rabbis 
agreed  that  all  the  suburbs  as  far  out  as  Bethany- 
might  be  considered  parts  of  the  city;  but  even  then 
there  would  not  be  kitchens  and  dining-rooms  enough 
for  the  multitude  to  use  in  one  day.  Very  possibly 
one  reason  why  Jesus  ate  the  Passover  a  day  in  ad- 
vance was  that  His  host  might  have  the  room  for  his 
own  use  at  the  regular  time.  If  Jesus  thus  anticipated 
the  day,  we  may  hold  both  that  He  ate  the  Passover 
meal,  though  not  at  the  regular  time,  and  that  He 
died  on  the  cross  at  the  regular  hour  for  killing  the 
Passover  Iamb. 

2.    The  Incidents  of  the  Supper. 

The  supper  was  eaten  in  the  house  of  a  disciple 
(Mark  14:  14);  and  from  the  fact  that  Mark  alone 
tells  of  the  young  man  who  followed  the  band  that 
came  to  arrest  Jesus  (14:  51)  we  surmise  it  was  the 
house  of  Mark's  family  (cf.  Acts  12:12).  Since 
Jesus  was  to  be  in  the  city  after  nightfall,  there  was 
need  to  keep  the  place  a  secret;  otherwise  the  traitor 
might  arrange  to  have  Him  arrested  there,  even  before 
the  supper  could  be  eaten.  Peter  and  John  could  be 
trusted;  but  it  was  best  that  they  should  not  know 
whither  they  were  sent  until  they  had  left  the  others. 
The  man  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water  (an  unusual  sight) 
could  guide  them  to  the  home  whose  hospitality  was 
certain.  The  two  disciples  went  into  the  city  early 
in  the  day,  and  were  busy  until  nightfall,  obtaining, 


270  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

killing  and  cooking  the  lamb,  and  preparing  the  sup- 
per. At  nightfall  Jesus  came  with  the  rest  of  the 
Twelve. 

This  was  the  only  Passover  at  which  Jesus  Himself 
was  the  giver  of  the  feast.  He  seems  to  have  stayed 
away  from  the  previous  Passover;  and  at  the  first  one 
in  His  ministry  He  and  His  disciples  numbered  less 
than  the  necessary  ten,  and  must  have  united  with 
others  in  the  feast.  Moreover,  this  was  probably  the 
first  time  in  all  their  long  companionship  that  He 
had  acted  as  host  to  the  Twelve  at  a  formal  meal. 
We  can  understand,  then,  why  the  disciples  watched 
eagerly  for  the  order  in  which  He  would  seat  them, 
and  for  every  detail  by  which  as  host  He  would  be 
compelled  for  once  to  indicate  His  preference  among 
them.  The  spirit  of  ambition  and  jealousy,  always 
ready  to  awaken,  was  roused,  and  marred  the  feast  to 
which  Jesus  had  so  eagerly  looked  forward.  It  had 
to  be  sharply  rebuked  both  by  word  and  by  act.  Judas 
was  the  chief  disturbing  factor,  and  the  early  part  of 
the  meal  was  occupied  with  a  silent  struggle  between 
him  and  Jesus.  From  the  time  they  entered  the  city, 
he  was  planning  how  he  could  get  away  to  inform  the 
rulers  that  their  victim  was  now  within  their  grasp. 
And  his  whole  bearing  was  one  of  scarcely  concealed 
insolence  and  contempt.  He  seized  and  held  the  seat 
of  honor  at  the  table  (see  Edersheim)  which  made  the 
others  indignant  and  envious.  He  looked  upon  the 
footwashing,  not  as  a  rebuke  to  the  others  and  an 
unspoken  appeal  to  himself  to  turn  back  from  the  path 
he  had  entered, — a  last  chance  for  repentance  and  for- 
giveness,— but  rather  as  the  crowning  proof  that  the 
Galilean  peasant,  who  he  once  expected  would  become 
a  king,  had  only  the  spirit  of  a  peasant  and  should  be 


LAST  SUPPER  AND  GETHSEMANE     271 

despised.  When,  as  the  meal  progressed,  Jesus  said 
with  anguish,  "  One  of  you  shall  betray  me,"  and  in 
consternation  the  others  cried  out,  "  It  is  not  I,  is  it, 
Lord?  ",  Judas  repeated  the  words,  but  with  a  signifi- 
cant change  that  veiled  a  sneer,  "  It  is  not  I,  is  it, 
rabbi  ?  "  And  when  the  answer  came,  "  Thou  hast 
said  it,"  he  still  was  neither  alarmed  nor  penitent.  It 
was  hopeless  to  deal  with  him  further,  and  his  pres- 
ence made  spiritual  teachings  impossible.  Let  him 
depart  and  do  his  worst.  "  What  thou  doest,  do 
quickly"  (John  13:27). 

It  was  after  Judas  had  gone  out  into  the  night,  and 
peace  was  restored,  that  the  most  significant  act  of  the 
supper  was  performed, — the  act  which  accounts  for 
the  desire  of  Jesus  to  celebrate  the  feast  with  His 
disciples.  Mark  says,  "  He  took  bread,  and  when  he 
had  blessed,  he  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  and  said, 
Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  a  cup,  and 
when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  gave  to  them ;  and  they 
all  drank  of  it.  And  he  said  unto  them,  This  is  my 
blood  of  the  covenant,  which  is  poured  out  for  many  " 
(Mark  14:22-24).  Some  scholars  deny  that  Jesus 
by  this  act  intended  to  institute  the  Christian  sacra- 
ment. "  He  was  not  teaching  theology  nor  giving 
veiled  utterance  to  any  mysterious  truth  concerning 
His  work  and  person.  He  had  already  told  them  that 
He  must  die,  and  that  His  death  would  be  in  reality  a 
means  of  blessing  to  them.  He  now  repeated  that 
prophecy  and  promise  in  vivid  and  impressive  sym- 
bol "  (McGiffert).  It  is  true  that  if, — as  in  some  of 
the  oldest  manuscripts, — Luke  22 :  i9b-20  is  omitted, 
the  Gospels  contain  no  injunction  to  repeat  the  act  in 
future  days :  but  Paul,  whose  epistle  is  earlier  than  the 
Gospels,  says  that  Jesus  commanded,  "  This  do  in  re- 


272  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

membrance  of  me  "  (I  Cor.  ii :  24).  It  is  also  true 
that  the  sacrament  would  be  of  little  significance  to  the 
disciples  until  after  the  death  of  Jesus ;  but  the  meaning 
they  found  in  it  later  on  would  really  be  there  from 
the  first,  ready  to  be  disclosed  when  they  were  able 
to  receive  it.  Whatever  theory  of  the  Eucharist  we 
adopt,  the  need  of  some  such  ceremony  to  unite  His 
followers  with  Him  and  with  one  another  was  so  evi- 
dent that  we  cannot  readily  believe  Jesus  made  no 
provision  for  it.  If  we  deny  that  He  instituted  it  be- 
fore His  death,  we  are  forced  to  hold  that  He  taught 
and  enjoined  it  after  His  resurrection. 

Though  John  does  not  tell  of  the  institution  of  the 
Eucharist,  he  does  give  the  wonderful  sacramental 
discourse  and  prayer  that  closed  the  meal.  The  state- 
ment in  the  earlier  part  of  it  (John  14:31),  "Arise, 
let  us  go  hence,"  has  been  taken  as  a  proof  that  the 
rest  of  the  discourse  and  the  prayer  were  not  in  the 
upper  room.  Some  hold  that  Jesus  went  to  the  temple 
and  finished  His  words  there.  This  seems  most  im- 
probable, and  is  only  supported  by  the  fact  that  over 
the  temple  gateway  there  was  a  vine  wrought  of  gold 
which,  it  is  argued,  suggested  the  allegory  of  the  vine 
and  branches.  Even  though  the  temple  was  open  and 
largely  deserted  at  night,  it  was  the  center  of  His 
enemies ;  and  moreover  there  was  nothing  to  draw  Him 
thither, — it  was  not  His  Father's  house  but  a  den  of 
robbers.  Others  think  He  spoke  the  balance  of  the 
discourse  on  the  way  to  Olivet.  But  this,  also,  is  hard 
to  believe.  How  could  He  suitably  teach  a  band  of 
eleven  men,  and  offer  prayer,  when  passing  along  the 
street?  Undoubtedly  it  was  dangerous  to  linger  in 
the  house;  but  the  discourse  was  probably  not  much 
longer  than  John  records;  each  word  of  it  would  sink 


LAST  SUPPER  AND  GETHSEMANE     273 

into  memory  at  such  an  hour.  The  simplest  solution 
is  to  change  the  order  of  John  14-16,  and  place  the 
command  to  depart  at  the  close,  and  thus  before  the 
final  prayer. 

3.    Gethsemane. 

The  place  was  an  enclosed  piece  of  ground  (Mark 
14:32),  that  is,  a  garden  (John  18:1),  across  the 
Kedron  on  the  Mount  of  Olives.  The  name  Gethsem- 
ane means  an  oil-press,  from  which  we  infer  there 
were  olive  trees  and  a  press  there, — a  prosaic  name, 
now  wonderfully  transformed.  Jesus  had  often  tar- 
ried there  (John  18:2),  possibly  had  spent  some  of 
the  previous  nights  there,  as  Judas  knew.  Evidentl}' 
He  was  making  no  attempt  to  flee  from  the  traitor. 
The  time  must  have  been  well  on  towards  midnight, 
and  it  was  the  season  of  the  full  moon. 

When  Jesus  and  His  disciples, — now  only  eleven 
for  the  son  of  perdition  was  lost, — came  to  the  place, 
He  said,  "  Sit  ye  here,  while  I  go  yonder  and  pray  " 
(Matt.  26:36).  Doubtless  He  had  done  the  same 
thing  before ;  but  now  He  took  with  him  Peter,  James 
and  John,  the  three  most  intimate  disciples,  as  once  He 
had  taken  them  on  another  night  of  prayer.  The 
former  time  it  had  been  to  help  them :  this  time  it  was 
that  their  presence  and  sympathy  might  be  a  help  to 
Him,  And  again  He  was  transfigured  before  them, 
but  not  as  before.  They  saw  the  Master,  who  an  hour 
ago  had  joined  in  singing  the  Passover  psalms  and  had 
said,  "  Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled,"  now  begin  to 
be  "greatly  amazed  and  sore  troubled"  (Mark  14: 
33).  Both  expressions  are  significant.  The  experi- 
ence into  which  His  soul  was  entering  was  such  as  to 
overwhelm  Him  with  its  unexpectedness ;  and  the  sore 


274  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

trouble  it  caused  was  (according  to  the  derivation  of 
the  Greek  verb  used)  a  feeling  of  separation,  loneli- 
ness and  longing  like  that  of  heart-breaking  home- 
sickness. It  seemed  crushing  the  very  life  out  of  Him, 
and  no  human  help  could  avail.  He  said  to  the  three, 
"My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful  even  unto  death: 
abide  ye  here  and  watch  " ;  and  going  forward  a  little, 
He  fell  to  the  ground  and  prayed  that,  if  it  were  pos- 
sible, the  hour  might  pass  from  Him.  Such  anguish, — 
so  sudden,  so  overpowering,  and  to  those  who  watched 
it  so  mysterious, — is  perhaps  beyond  our  comprehen- 
sion. Certainly  whatever  other  explanation  of  it  we 
may  adopt,  we  cannot  but  reject  indignantly  the  super- 
ficial view  which  sees  in  it  only  an  overpowering  fear 
of  impending  physical  pain,  and  a  desperate  desire  to 
escape  death.  What  can  be  said  of  a  writer  who,  in 
picturing  the  thoughts  that  filled  Christ's  mind  at  this 
hour,  asks,  "  Did  He  remember  the  clear  fountains  of 
Galilee  where  He  was  wont  to  refresh  Himself;  the 
vine  and  fig  tree  under  which  He  reposed;  and  the 
young  maidens  who  perhaps  would  have  consented  to 
love  Him  ?  Did  He  curse  the  hard  destiny  which  had 
denied  Him  the  joys  conceded  to  all  others?  Did  He 
regret  His  too  lofty  nature;  and,  victim  of  His  great- 
ness, did  He  mourn  that  He  had  not  remained  a  simple 
artisan  of  Nazareth?  "  (Renan).  If  He  did,  we  could 
not  but  pronounce  Socrates  a  far  greater  teacher  than 
Jesus  of  Nazareth;  for  the  Greek  philosopher  met 
death  undisturbed  and  with  noble  discourse  about 
immortality. 
'-\—  There  are  some  who  explain  His  sorrow  by  the 

specially  saddening  circumstances  that  surrounded  His 
last  hours.  One  of  the  Twelve  betrayed  Him,  another 
denied  Him  with  curses :  the  rulers  prostituted  justice 


LAST  SUPPER  AND  GETHSEMANE     275 

to  secure  His  sentence :  the  people  shouted,  "  Crucify 
him!";  the  soldiers  mocked  and  tortured  Him;  the 
very  robber,  crucified  beside  Him,  joined  in  reviling 
Him, — all  the  base  passions  of  man  held  carnival 
around  His  cross.  If  death  must  come,  need  it  come 
with  such  accompaniments?  Might  not  this  cup  be 
removed?  Such  an  explanation  of  Christ's  agony  and 
prayer  may  be  true  enough;  but  is  it  deep  enough? 
Does  it  do  justice  to  His  strength  of  character  and 
firmness  of  will?  There  had  been  hours  before  this 
when  a  furious  storm  of  hatred  raged  around  Him, 
and  no  human  friend  was  at  hand :  remembering  His 
attitude  then,  can  we  believe  that  now  the  prospect  of 
the  same  hatred  and  lack  of  human  support  prostrated 
Him  utterly  ?  No ;  the  cause  must  be  a  greater  one  to 
produce  such  an  effect. 

In  the  old  prophecy  of  the  suffering  servant,  it  is 
said,  "  The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us 
all  "  (Is.  53  :  6).  That  prophecy,  we  may  believe,  was 
now  being  fulfilled ;  and  the  weight  of  the  burden  laid 
upon  Him  was  what  crushed  Jesus  to  the  ground. 
How  such  transfer  of  the  iniquity  of  us  all  could  be 
effected  is  a  perennial  problem.  Theories  of  the  atone- 
ment are  numerous,  each  with  a  measure  of  truth,  but 
none  broad  enough  for  the  whole  tremendous  trans- 
action. The  matter  remains  a  mystery.  And  yet  it  is 
not  wholly  incomprehensible.  In  each  of  us,  so  far  as 
we  love  our  fellow  men,  there  is  a  power  called  sym- 
pathy by  which  not  only  the  joys  and  sorrows  of  our 
brother  become  our  own,  but  even  his  sins  weigh  us 
down  with  a  sense  of  guilt  and  shame,  as  if  we  our- 
selves had  committed  them.  And  through  this  same 
power  of  sympathy,  and  only  as  we  employ  it,  are  we 
able  to  help  our  sinning  brother  towards  a  righteous 


276  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

life.  Every  act  of  loving  sympathy  for  those  who  have 
fallen  is  in  a  little  measure  an  atoning  sacrifice.  Sup- 
pose that  love  were  boundless,  and  sympathy  able  to 
enter  into  the  whole  orbit  of  human  experience,  would 
not  the  result  somehow  be  Gethsemane  and  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  world  ? 

We  cannot  study  this  chapter  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
without  feeling  that  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness 
had  its  parallel  in  Gethsemane.  His  ministry  may  be 
divided  into  two  parts,  one  active  and  one  passive, — 
the  years  when  before  the  Sanhedrin,  the  people  and 
the  disciples,  He  uttered  gracious  words  and  did  mighty 
works;  and  the  hours  when  before  each  of  these  three 
He  stood  in  silent  suffering  and  gave  no  sign  of  power. 
Was  not  Gethsemane  the  place  of  preparation  and  an- 
ticipatory struggle  for  the  latter  part,  even  as  the 
wilderness  was  for  the  former?  Certainly  there  are 
striking  resemblances  between  the  two.  He  said  after 
the  Last  Supper,  "  The  prince  of  this  world  cometh," 
even  as  He  said  concerning  the  wilderness  that  there 
Satan  came  to  Him.  In  both  He  went  voluntarily  to 
meet  the  adversary.  In  both  He  could  have  no  human 
companionship  or  sympathy.  In  both  there  was  a 
thrice  repeated  struggle.  And  in  both  the  unshaken 
determination,  which  carried  Him  through  the  conflict, 
was,  "  I  must  do  the  will  of  my  Father."  To  go  fur- 
ther and  attempt  to  state  the  special  burden  of  each 
of  the  three  seasons  of  prayer  in  Gethsemane  would 
be  to  press  beyond  what  is  written.  Christ  did  tell 
us  w^hat  each  of  the  three  temptations  in  the  wilder- 
ness contained ;  but  He  has  given  no  similar  revelation 
concerning  the  Garden.  We  know  merely  what  drowsy 
disciples  managed  to  see  and  hear. 

The  account,  given  only  by  Luke  (22:43-44),  of 


LAST  SUPPER  AND  GETHSEMANE     277 

the  angelic  ministration  and  of  the  bloody  sweat,  seems 
to  be  a  later  insertion,  as  it  is  not  found  in  some  of 
the  oldest  and  best  manuscripts.  If  it  was  in  the 
original,  there  is  no  reason  why  a  copyist  should  omit 
it;  but  Luke's  account  without  it  is  so  brief  and  lack- 
ing in  emphasis  of  the  struggle  of  Christ's  soul,  that  a 
copyist  would  be  inclined  to  make  the  addition.  Some 
think  that  it  was  an  early  tradition  preserving  a  trust- 
worthy detail ;  but  it  seems  more  likely  a  symbolical 
statement  of  a  spiritual  experience  of  Jesus.  We 
notice  that  from  this  passage  we  get  the  term  "  agony," 
so  commonly  used  in  describing  Gethsemane. 

4.    The  Arrest. 

Though  Jesus  had  foretold  that  He  should  be  "  de- 
livered up,"  i.e.,  betrayed.  His  first  announcement  that 
the  traitor  was  one  of  the  Twelve  was  at  the  Last 
Supper.  It  astonished  the  others,  and  must  have 
startled  Judas,  as  showing  that  Jesus  knew  of  his  plot. 
Yet  Judas  was  not  afraid;  his  feehng  towards  Jesus 
now  was  hatred  and  contempt.  But  since  the  plot 
was  known,  he  was  in  haste  to  carry  his  part  through. 
It  took  time  for  him  to  find  the  rulers,  and  for  them 
to  make  arrangements  for  the  arrest;  but  finally  they 
were  under  way  with  some  of  the  Roman  cohort 
armed  with  swords,  and  some  of  the  temple  police 
armed  with  clubs,  and  led  by  Jewish  officers  (John  18 : 
3,  Mark  14:43).  Naturally  he  would  lead  them  first 
to  the  house  where  he  left  Jesus,  and  finding  Him  no 
longer  there,  would  go  next  to  Gethsemane.  This  is 
confirmed  by  the  incident  of  Mark  14:  51-52.  There 
is  no  apparent  reason  why  Mark  should  tell  this,  unless 
because  it  was  his  personal  experience.  Aroused  from 
sleep  by  the  coming  of  the  soldiers  to  his  house,  and 


278  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

recognizing  from  the  presence  of  Judas  that  treachery 
was  afoot,  he  hurried  after  them  without  stopping  to 
dress,  and  at  Gethsemane  narrowly  escaped  arrest. 

Judas  had  arranged  to  indicate  which  was  Jesus 
by  going  up  to  Him  with  a  kiss  of  greeting;  and  his 
nervous  fear  that  after  all  his  victim  might  escape 
through  some  mistake  is  shown  by  his  kissing  Him 
repeatedly  when  they  met  (Mark  14 :  45).  The  excla- 
mation of  Jesus,  "  Comrade,  for  what  art  thou  pres- 
ent! "  (Matt.  26 :  50),  is  a  cry  of  horror  at  his  action; 
practically  the  same  as  "  Judas,  betrayest  thou  the  Son 
of  Man  with  a  kiss!"  (Luke  22:48). 

Peter  remembered  Christ's  words  about  a  sword 
(Luke  22  :  36-38),  and  thought  that  now  at  last  He  was 
ready  to  have  His  followers  fight;  accordingly  with  a 
rash  blow  he  cut  off  the  ear  of  a  servant  of  the  high- 
priest.  Note  that  only  John  tells  that  Peter  was  the 
apostle  and  Malchus  the  servant;  both  had  long  been 
dead  when  John  wrote,  so  to  mention  their  names 
would  do  no  harm.  Only  Luke  tells  of  the  restoration 
of  the  ear ;  but  had  not  the  miracle  been  performed,  the 
deed  of  Peter  would  have  been  a  charge  preferred 
against  Jesus  and  His  followers  in  the  trial  before  the 
highpriest  or  Pilate.  Christ's  words,  "  Suffer  ye  thus 
far"  (Luke  22:51)  are  hard  to  interpret;  possibly 
they  mean,  "  Give  me  liberty  while  I  perform  the 
miracle."  His  rebuke  to  Peter,  His  refusal  to  help 
Himself,  and  His  "  Let  these  go  their  way  "  (John 
18:  8),  were  taken  by  the  disciples  as  a  signal  to  flee. 
They  do  not  deserve  censure  for  so  doing ;  though  they 
left  their  Master  alone  to  be  led  away  like  a  robber 
taken  in  the  hour  of  darkness. 


LAST  SUPPER  AND  GETHSEMANE     279 

5.   Judas  Iscariot. 

Exactly  why  did  Judas  seek  to  betray  Jesus  ?  Some, 
wishing  to  excuse  his  act  and  rehabilitate  his  reputa- 
tion, have  argued  that  he  was  simply  trying  to  force  the 
hand  of  Jesus,  supposing  that  an  arrest  would  compel 
Him  to  assert  His  Messianic  claims.  "  There  was, 
perhaps,  in  his  deed  more  awkwardness  than  perver- 
sity "  (Renan).  In  proof  of  this  it  is  pointed  out  that 
when  he  found  his  plan  had  failed,  he  tried  in  vain 
to  undo  it,  and  then  committed  suicide.  This  theory 
confounds  remorse  with  godly  sorrow,  and  is  refuted 
by  Christ's  own  sentence  upon  Judas,  "  Good  were  it 
for  that  man,  i  f  he  had  not  been  born  "  ( Mark  14:21). 
The  Abyssinian  church  reckons  Pilate  a  saint  because 
he  washed  his  hands ;  these  men  would  have  us  reckon 
Judas  a  saint  because  he  hung  himself.  Some,  going 
to  the  other  extreme,  suppose  him  to  have  been  a  devil 
from  the  beginning.  But  if  so,  would  Jesus  ever  have 
chosen  him  to  be  an  apostle ;  or  could  he  have  lived  and 
labored  with  the  apostles  all  along?  "Judas  acted 
like  a  Satan,  but  like  a  Satan  who  had  it  in  him  to 
be  an  apostle."  His  career  forms  a  sad  but  instructive 
study  in  the  progress  of  sin.  If  he  seems  blackest  of 
sinners,  it  is  because  of  the  light  which  surrounded 
him.  And  his  is  the  only  instance  where  sin,  having 
run  its  full  course,  has  received  its  final  sentence 
from  Christ  in  this  world. 

The  known  facts  in  his  history  are  few  but  all 
significant.  He  and  his  father,  Simon  (John  6:71), 
were  each  called  Iscariot,  which  means  the  man  from 
Kerioth,  a  little  town  in  Judea.  He  seems  to  have  been 
the  only  Judean  among  the  Twelve.  The  Galilean 
apostles  were  bound  together  by  common  ties;  and 


280  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

some  of  them  were  friends  even  before  they  followed 
Jesus.  Judas  entered  the  band  a  stranger  and  an 
aHen;  and  his  self -centered  nature  would  keep  him 
from  forming  strong  friendships.  Thus  he  lacked  one 
support  in  the  hour  of  temptation.  Because  he  was  a 
Judean  his  Messianic  ideas  differed  somewhat  from 
those  of  his  comrades;  and  the  contempt  for  Gali- 
leans, which  he  had  been  taught  to  cherish,  made  it 
hard  for  him  to  surrender  his  heart  to  Jesus,  and  trust 
when  he  could  not  understand.  There  were  hours 
when  the  others  faltered,  but  love  kept  them  loyal; 
Judas  lacked  this  support  also.  Why,  then,  did  he  fol- 
low Jesus  at  all?  Partly  because  he  believed  him  to 
be  the  promised  Messiah  whom  every  Jew  ought  to 
follow,  and  partly  because  he  sought  for  worldly  ad- 
vancement. He  took  the  position  of  treasurer  in  the 
little  company,  thinking  thereby  to  secure  a  corre- 
sponding position  in  the  kingdom  that  Jesus  would 
presently  establish ;  and  yet,  doubtless,  the  call  of  Jesus 
appealed  to  his  higher  nature.  Unmixed  motives  are 
rare ;  and  a  blending  of  selfishness  with  devotion  is  evi- 
dent in  others  of  the  Twelve. 

The  first  great  time  of  testing  was  when  the  popu- 
larity of  Jesus  waned,  and  the  hope  of  an  earthly  king- 
dom grew  faint.  It  was  a  critical  time  for  the  other 
apostles;  but  love  and  faith  brought  them  safely 
through  it.  Judas  himself  did  not  wholly  fall  away; 
yet  his  spirit  of  selfish  disappointment  and  gathering 
resentment  was  evident  to  Jesus,  and  caused  Him  to 
say,  "  One  of  you  is  a  devil  "  (John  6 :  70).  This  spirit 
increased,  as  the  months  went  by  and  Jesus  made  no 
move  to  become  a  king.  Judas  feared  he  was  follow- 
ing a  leader  who  had  held  out  hopes  without  intending 
to  realize  them;  and  he  grew  bitter  towards  Jesus. 


LAST  SUPPER  AND  GETHSEMANE     281 

As  ambition  was  increasingly  thwarted,  a  meaner  pas- 
sion increased  in  power.  Avarice  developed,  and  by 
the  time  of  the  feast  in  Simon's  house  Judas  was 
stealing  from  the  common  purse  (John  12:6).  Doubt- 
less he  quieted  his  conscience  by  justifying  his  act: — 
Jesus  under  false  pretences  had  kept  him  away  from 
lucrative  employment;  the  money  embezzled  was  but 
scanty  wages  for  the  time  he  had  wasted  in  foolish 
discipleship. 

In  his  act  of  betrayal  Judas  was  influenced  by 
avarice,  but  this  was  not  the  chief  motive.  The  failure 
of  the  triumphal  entry  had  convinced  him  that  Jesus 
would  never  be  king.  Therefore  he  felt  himself 
swindled  in  having  followed  such  a  pretender.  He 
hated  the  Twelve  and  their  Master,  and  believed  him- 
self a  wronged  man.  He  would  hand  them  over  to  the 
fate  they  deserved  at  the  hands  of  the  Sanhedrin,  and 
in  doing  so  would  get  what  money  he  could  out  of  it. 
Thirty  pieces  of  silver  (probably  shekels  from  the 
temple  treasury)  would  be  equal  to  120  denarii,  and  a 
denarius  was  a  day's  wage.  The  amount  was  the  price 
of  a  slave  (Ex.  21 :  32),  and,  though  not  a  great  sum, 
was  worth  securing,  and  was  all  he  could  get, — except 
the  contents  of  the  purse.  (H  only  Mary  had  sold 
the  ointment,  and  put  300  denarii  into  that  purse!) 
Avarice,  then,  and  revenge  worked  together;  but  re- 
venge was  the  chief  motive.  It  is  the  more  deadly 
passion ;  but  liable,  when  glutted,  to  turn  into  remorse, 
as  avarice  does  not. 

There  are  two  accounts  of  the  death  of  Judas,  that  in 
Matt.  27 :  3  f.  and  that  in  Acts  i :  18  f.  They  disagree 
as  to  who  purchased  the  field, — the  priests  or  Judas; 
as  to  how  Judas  died, — by  hanging  or  by  falling  head- 
long; and  as  to  the  origin  of  the  name  of  the  field, — 


g82  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

the  price  of  blood  or  the  bloody  death.  They  may  by 
an  effort  be  harmonized,  but  it  is  better  to  leave  them 
as  two  diverse  accounts  of  how  a  bad  man  came  to  a 
bad  end; — or  we  may  reject  the  one  in  Acts  as  being 
originally  a  note  by  some  scholiast.  Papias  (70-155 
A.D.)  gives  a  version  of  the  death  still  more  revolting: 
*'  Judas  walked  about  in  this  world,  a  sad  example  of 
impiety;  for  his  body  had  swollen  to  such  an  extent 
that  he  could  not  pass  where  a  chariot  would  pass 
easily;  he  was  crushed  by  the  chariot  so  that  his 
bowels  gushed  out."  Later  traditions  are  even  more 
horrible.  Imagination  loved  to  dwell  upon  the 
wretched  end  of  Judas;  but  no  statement  is  more  ap- 
palling in  its  unexpressed  significance  than  that  of 
Peter  when  he  speaks  of  the  apostleship  "  from  which 
Judas  fell  away  that  he  might  go  to  his  own  place  " 
(Acts  1 :25). 


w 


XVIII 

THE  TRIAL  AND  CRUCIFIXION 

'E  have  seen  how  the  raising  of  Lazarus  made  the 
Sanhedrin  agree  that  it  was  expedient  for  them 
that  Jesus  should  die  (John  11:50).  The  grounds 
of  the  expediency  were  religious,  political  and  financial ; 
Jesus  must  be  put  out  of  the  way  because  He  denounced 
the  teachings  of  the  Pharisees,  threatened  the  comfort- 
able relations  with  Rome  of  the  Sadducees,  and  con- 
demned the  temple  traffic  of  the  chief  priests.  But 
this  removal  must  be  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  offend 
the  people;  even  the  Sanhedrin  did  not  care  to  face 
a  tempest  of  popular  indignation.  While  vainly  seek- 
ing an  opportunity  to  assassinate  Him,  they  found  that 
one  of  His  disciples  stood  ready  to  betray  Him.  There- 
upon it  was  determined  to  compass  Jesus'  death  by  an 
official  sentence  followed  by  a  Roman  execution.  This 
was  a  more  hazardous  course,  and  for  its  success  three 
things  were  necessary.  First,  Jesus  must  be  arrested 
and  brought  before  the  Sanhedrin  without  arousing  a 
tumult  or  a  rescue  by  His  friends.  The  offer  by  Judas 
to  lead  them  to  His  nightly  retreat  made  this  possible. 
Second,  Pilate  must  be  induced  to  pronounce  sentence 
and  order  execution  promptly;  it  would  be  politic  to 
have  the  Roman  government  bear  the  final  responsi- 
bility for  the  death.  Concerning  this  they  had  little 
anxiety.  Pilate  was  disposed  to  conciliate  the  Jews, 
especially  at  the  great  festival  seasons  when  Jerusalem 
was  crowded  and  any  disturbances  might  be  disastrous ; 


284  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

a  formal  request  from  the  Sanhedrin  would  have  much 
weight  with  him ;  and  the  death  of  the  Galilean  peasant- 
prophet  would  be  a  trifle  to  a  ruler  who  already  had 
mingled  the  blood  of  Galileans  with  their  feast  (Luke 
13 :  i).  Third,  a  pretext  must  be  found  which  would 
justify  the  execution  of  Jesus  in  the  opinion  of  the 
people.  This  was  the  most  important  and  difficult  part 
of  the  affair.  The  multitude  would  not  question 
closely  into  the  trial  itself ;  any  illegality  here  might  be 
concealed;  but  it  certainly  would  ask  for  what  reason 
the  Sanhedrin  had  put  the  reputed  prophet  to  death, 
and  would  not  be  satisfied  unless  the  offence  evidently 
merited  such  punishment.  To  decide  upon  a  suitable 
charge  against  their  prisoner  was  the  main  work  of  the 
Sanhedrin  in  the  hours  between  Christ's  midnight  ar- 
rest and  His  presentation  before  Pilate  the  next  morn- 
ing. The  proceedings  were  in  no  sense  a  trial,  unless 
we  choose  to  call  that  a  trial  in  which  first  the  sentence 
is  determined  upon  and  then  reasons  for  it  are  sought. 
Volumes  have  been  written  discussing  the  legality  of 
the  proceedings;  but  such  discussion  is  largely  idle 
because  we  have  no  certain  knowledge  of  the  laws 
that  regulated  the  acts  of  the  Sanhedrin  in  the  days  of 
Jesus.  We  do  have  very  exact  rules  for  all  its  pro- 
ceedings set  forth  in  the  Talmud;  but  these  received 
their  final  form  centuries  after  the  Sanhedrin  ceased 
to  exist,  and  seem  for  the  most  part  purely  academic. 

I.    Jesus  before  the  Sanhedrin. 

The  details  are  somewhat  confused.  All  the  Synop- 
tists  agree  that  there  was  some  kind  of  a  meeting  at 
night  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  soon  after  the  arrest : 
and  another  early  in  the  morning,  just  before  taking 
Jesus  to  Pilate.    But  Matthew  and  Mark  put  the  chief 


THE  TRIAL  AND  CRUCIFIXION        285 

examination  in  the  night  meeting,  while  Luke  puts  it  in 
the  morning.  John  tells  that  Jesus  was  led  first  of  all 
to  Annas ;  and  we  are  somewhat  puzzled  to  follow  his 
later  account  because  we  are  not  sure  whom  he  desig- 
nates as  "the  highpriest."  (He  says  expressly  that 
Caiaphas  was  "highpriest  that  year"  (18:13)  and 
calls  him  "the  highpriest"  (18:24);  but  it  seems 
likely  that  he  also  calls  xA.nnas  the  highpriest,  because 
Annas  had  formerly  held  that  office  and  still  was  the 
head  of  the  hierarchy.  Compare  Luke's  "  in  the  high- 
priesthood  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas  "  (3:2),  also  Acts 
4:6  where  Annas  is  called  highpriest).  A  possible 
arrangement  of  the  incidents  is  all  that  can  be  claimed 
for  the  following  narrative. 

Jesus,  when  arrested,  was  taken  before  Annas,  the 
old  leader  of  the  priestly  party,  who  briefly  examined 
Him  while  the  council  was  gathering,  and  then  sent 
Him  still  bound  to  Caiaphas  and  the  midnight  meeting 
(John  18:  24).  Though  Mark  says  (14^53)  that  "  all 
the  chief  priests  and  the  elders  and  the  scribes  "  were 
at  the  midnight  meeting,  yet  he  (see  15:  i)  and  the 
other  Synoptists  describe  the  meeting  as  less  full  and 
formal  than  that  of  the  next  morning.  Probably  only 
the  leaders  of  the  Sanhedrin  were  present,  and  they 
came  to  determine  by  consultation  and  by  examina- 
tion of  their  prisoner  what  ofifence  should  be  the  pre- 
text for  His  death.  They  had  no  doubt  that  Pilate 
would  pronounce  a  death  sentence  simply  at  their 
request ;  but  they  must  find  some  charge  against  Jesus 
that  would  make  the  people  approve  His  condemnation. 
Evidently  the  acts  which  had  stirred  up  their  own  hos- 
tility against  Jesus, — such  as  His  purification  of  the 
temple.  His  disregard  of  the  traditions  of  the  elders. 
His  denunciation  of  scribes  and  Pharisees, — could  not 


286  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

be  brought  forward,  because  some  of  them  had  the 
endorsement  of  the  people,  and  others  did  not  justify 
extreme  punishment.  Various  creatures  of  the  priests 
were  ready  to  swear  to  anything;  but  there  was  not 
time  to  train  these  in  perjury,  and  their  testimony  in 
its  present  shape  was  plainly  false.  Once,  indeed,  it 
seemed  as  if  the  desired  charge  was  found.  Two  men 
bore  testimony  that  Jesus  had  said,  "  I  will  destroy  the 
temple,  and  build  it  again  in  three  days."  And  the 
people,  who  held  sacred  the  very  stones  of  the  temple, 
and  were  ready  to  tear  in  pieces  any  one  who  dared 
to  profane  it,  would  agree  that  death  was  a  proper 
punishment  for  making  such  a  threat.  But  these  two 
witnesses,  testifying  as  they  did  to  a  garbled  statement, 
disagreed  so  manifestly  that  they  had  to  be  set  aside. 
The  people  might  remember  what  Jesus  had  really  said. 
Time  was  passing.  Unless  some  decision  was  speed- 
ily reached  before  daybreak,  their  victim  might  escape. 
In  fury  Caiaphas  turned  upon  the  silent  prisoner,  and 
tried  to  browbeat  Him  into  saying  something  that 
would  incriminate  Him;  but  Jesus  remained  silent. 
There  was  one  thing  more  Caiaphas  could  do ;  adminis- 
tering to  Jesus  the  most  solemn  of  oaths,  "  I  adjure 
thee  by  the  living  God"  (Matt.  26:63),  ^^  P^*  ^^^ 
question,  "  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
Blessed?  ";  in  other  words,  "  Art  thou  the  Messiah?  " 
Jesus  might  have  refused  to  answer.  But  this  was  the 
hour  for  His  supreme  testimony  to  the  Sanhedrin, — 
the  hour  He  had  long  awaited  when  the  head  of  the 
nation  should  solemnly  ask  Him  His  nature  and  mis- 
sion, and  should  be  as  solemnly  answered.  His  answer 
claimed  Messianic  position  and  power  to  the  utmost 
extent,  "I  am;  and  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sit- 
ting at  the  right  hand  of  Power,  and  coming  with  the 


THE  TRIAL  AND  CRUCIFIXION        287 

clouds  of  heaven"  (Mark  14:62).  It  solved  the 
problem  of  the  rulers.  The  man  who  falsely  claimed  to 
be  the  Messiah, — and  the  Sanhedrin  was  recognized 
to  be  the  proper  judge  of  such  claims, — was  guilty  of 
blasphemy  that  should  be  punished  by  death ;  so  every 
devout  Jew  would  agree.  Of  course,  Pilate  might 
not  think  the  same;  but  they  had  no  expectation  of 
difficulty  with  Pilate.  The  midnight  meeting  then 
adjourned,  leaving  Jesus  to  the  mockery  and  abuse  of 
His  Jewish  guard. 

The  denial  of  Jesus  by  Peter  took  place  during  these 
hours.  The  incident  is  interesting  for  its  light  upon 
Peter's  character;  but  is  of  no  special  importance 
otherwise.  Note  how  Luke  softens  the  account  by 
Mark  and  Matthew, — omitting  the  cursing,  making 
the  three  denials  an  anti-climax,  and  alone  telling  of 
the  look  of  Jesus, — and  how  John  tells  the  story  with 
even  more  consideration  for  Peter. 

In  the  morning,  "  as  soon  as  it  was  day,"  there  was 
another  gathering.  Now  the  whole  Sanhedrin  was 
present,  excepting  probably  Nicodemus,  Joseph  of 
Arimathaea  and  any  other  friends  of  Jesus.  At  this 
time  there  may  possibly  have  been  some  semblance  of 
a  hasty  trial, — the  putting  again  the  question,  and 
judgment  passed  upon  the  answer;  but  the  purpose  of 
the  gathering  was  to  take  the  prisoner  formally  to 
Pilate  before  news  of  the  midnight  arrest  became  pub- 
lic. Accordingly  it  was  a  brief  meeting;  and  from  it 
they  went  directly  to  Pilate's  palace. 

2.   Jesus  before  Pilate. 

Pilate  was  procurator  from  26  to  36  a.d.  What  we 
know  about  him,  outside  of  the  gospel  narrative,  is 
mainly  from  Josephus,  who  evidently  was  prejudiced 


288  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

against  him.  The  fact  that  he  rose  from  obscurity  to 
the  responsible  position  of  a  Roman  procurator,  and 
succeeded  in  governing  the  turbulent  province  of  Judea 
for  a  longer  period  than  any  other  of  the  fourteen 
procurators  save  one,  proves  that  he  was  neither  weak 
nor  foolish.  In  the  present  scene  he  appears  creditably, 
and  makes  a  hard  fight  to  save  a  prisoner  about  whom 
He  evidently  knows  a  good  deal,  and  whose  death  he 
is  aware  is  sought  by  the  rulers  for  envy  ( Mark  1 5 : 
10). 

It  is  not  easy  to  arrange  the  incidents  of  the  trial 
before  Pilate  because  each  evangelist  gives  only  selec- 
tions from  them.  If  we  may  use  legal  terms  in  de- 
scribing a  proceeding  that  little  resembled  a  legal  trial, 
we  can  say  that  twice  Pilate  dismissed  the  case  as  not 
being  in  his  jurisdiction,  three  times  he  declared  there 
was  no  evidence  worth  considering,  and  three  times  he 
instructed  the  jury  to  acquit  the  prisoner :  then  most 
reluctantly  he  pronounced  sentence  of  death. 

The  rulers  presented  the  prisoner  to  be  sentenced  to 
death  on  the  bare  statement  that  they  had  found  Him 
to  be  a  malefactor.  The  impudence  of  the  request 
brought  out  the  sarcastic  retort  from  Pilate,  "  If  you 
have  taken  this  matter  into  your  own  hands,  carry  out 
your  sentence  without  me."  This  forced  the  humiliat- 
ing confession  that  a  death  sentence  was  beyond  their 
power  (John  18  :  28-32).  Then  they  brought  forward 
political  charges  which  they  thought  would  be  most 
effective,  viz. :  that  Jesus  forbade  the  payment  of 
Roman  taxes  and  proclaimed  Himself  a  king.  Pilate 
knew  the  Jews  well  enough  to  be  certain  that  they 
never  would  ask  the  death  of  a  countryman  for  these 
offences ;  and  a  private  examination  of  Jesus  showed 
at  once  that  the  charges  were  false.    The  kingdom  He 


THE  TRIAL  AND  CRUCIFIXION        289 

claimed  meant  little  to  Pilate  :  but  certainly  it  was  not  a 
menace  to  the  Roman  rule.  Accordingly  he  dismissed 
the  complaint:  "I  find  no  fault  in  this  man"  (Luke 
23:1-4;  John  18:33-38).  Another  political  charge, 
more  plausible  because  of  the  recent  triumphal  entry, 
was  brought  forward :  "  He  stirreth  up  the  people, 
teaching  throughout  all  Judea,  and  beginning  from 
Galilee  even  unto  this  place."  The  mention  of  Galilee 
disclosed  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  a  Galilean;  and 
Pilate  both  freed  himself  from  this  troublesome 
prisoner  and  paid  a  compliment  to  Herod  Antipas, 
who  happened  to  be  in  Jerusalem,  by  sending  Jesus 
to  him  to  be  dealt  with  as  one  of  his  own  subjects 
(Luke  23:5-7). 

Herod  listened  to  the  accusations :  but  he  was  too 
diplomatic  to  take  any  active  step  towards  acquitting 
or  condemning  Jesus,  since  it  would  offend  either  the 
chief  men  of  Judea  or  the  friends  of  Jesus  in  Galilee. 
He  had  no  sympathy  with  Him  as  a  religious  teacher, 
and  had  ceased  to  fear  Him  as  a  possible  insurrec- 
tionist; but  he  had  long  wished  to  see  him  perform  a 
miracle.  When  he  found  that  Jesus  remained  abso- 
lutely passive  in  his  presence,  he  sent  Him  back  to 
Pilate,  clothed  in  a  royal  robe  as  a  gibe  at  the  idea 
of  deeming  Him  a  king  (Luke  23:8-12). 

Next,  Pilate  proposed  a  compromise; — ^he  would 
scourge  Jesus  and  then  release  Him.  Evidently  he 
was  weakening;  so  the  rulers  rejected  his  proposal 
(Luke  23  :  13-16).  By  this  time  a  crowd  had  come  to 
ask  the  customary  boon  of  release  of  a  prisoner  in 
honor  of  the  feast.  Pilate,  remembering  the  events 
of  Sunday,  was  sure  there  must  be  friends  of  Jesus 
in  the  crowd;  and  this  suggested  a  solution  of  his 
difficulties: — he  would  treat  Jesus  as  a  condemned 


290  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

criminal,  thus  satisfying  His  accusers,  and  yet  would 
avoid  putting  Him  to  death  by  offering  a  choice  be- 
tween Him  and  Jesus  Barabbas,  a  notorious  offender 
whom  he  was  sure  no  one  would  wish  released.  The 
unexpected  arrival  of  the  outsiders  must  have  discon- 
certed the  rulers,  who  had  hoped  to  forestall  public 
knowledge  of  what  they  were  doing;  but  without  much 
difficulty  they  persuaded  the  rabble  to  choose  Barab- 
bas, and  in  answer  to  the  question  what  should  be  done 
with  Jesus,  to  shout,  "  Crucify  him  "  (Mark  15  :  5-14). 
Meanwhile  a  message  from  his  wife  had  increased 
Pilate's  unwillingness  to  condemn  Jesus  (Matt.  27: 
19) ;  so  next  he  appealed  to  the  pity  of  the  crowd  by 
presenting  Jesus  after  He  had  been  scourged  and 
crowned  with  thorns.  But  to  Pilate's  "  Behold  the 
man !  "  the  cry  again  was,  "  Crucify,  crucify !  "  (John 
i9-i"5)-  This  obstinate  persistence  roused  Pilate's 
obstinacy;  and  he  came  back  to  the  position  he  had 
taken  at  the  outset ;  with  a  sneer  at  the  helplessness  of 
the  Jews  he  said,  "  Take  him  yourself,  and  crucify 
him ;  for  I  find  no  crime  in  him  "  (John  19:6). 

Now,  the  rulers  abandoned  the  political  charges,  and 
for  the  first  time  revealed  the  religious  charge :  "  We 
have  a  law,  and  by  that  law  he  ought  to  die  because  he 
made  himself  the  Son  of  God,"  Whatever  Pilate  may 
have  understood  by  the  term,  "  the  Son  of  God,"  his 
superstitious  dread  of  Jesus  was  increased;  and  after 
another  private  examination,  he  dramatically  and  im- 
pressively washed  his  hands  before  the  multitude,  say- 
ing, "  I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  righteous 
man;  see  ye  to  it."  The  people,  unmoved  by  his  act, 
replied,  "  His  blood  be  on  us,  and  on  our  children  " 
(Matt.  27:  24-25;  John  19:  7-123) ;  and  the  rulers  be- 
gan to  utter  openly  the  grim  threat,  whose  silent  force 


THE  TRIAL  AND  CRUCIFIXION        291 

had  kept  Pilate  in  dread  of  displeasing  them,  that  they 
would  denounce  him  to  Tiberius  as  a  traitor  if  he 
released  Jesus.  This  was  their  final  weapon,  and  it 
ended  the  struggle.  A  hint  of  disloyalty  carried 
to  the  savage,  suspicious  emperor  would  end  Pilate's 
career  and  probably  his  life;  the  danger  must  be 
averted  even  at  the  cost  of  the  prisoner's  life.  Ac- 
cordingly he  prepared  to  pronounce  the  desired  sen- 
tence. And  yet  he  could  not  help  making  one  more 
appeal ;  or  it  may  have  been  a  sarcasm.  As  Jesus  was 
brought  out  before  the  people,  he  said,  "  Behold  your 
king!  Shall  I  crucify  your  king?";  and  the  chief 
priests  answered,  "  We  have  no  king  but  Caesar." 
They  stated  truly  the  position  of  the  Sadducees;  but 
the  silent  acquiescence  of  the  Pharisees  at  any  other 
time  would  have  been  impossible ;  for  such  a  statement 
was  political  and  religious  suicide.  Then  Pilate  pro- 
nounced sentence  (John  I9:i2b-i6),  and  Jesus  was 
handed  over  to  the  Roman  soldiers. 

The  foregoing  is  a  harmonious  combination  of  the 
four  evangelistic  narratives.  Very  possibly  some  of 
the  incidents  are  duplicates,  varied  in  the  telling,  and 
the  story  should  be  much  shorter.  No  alteration  in  it, 
however,  can  materially  change  the  essential  features. 
The  incidents  of  Pilate's  washing  his  hands  and  the 
dream  of  his  wife  are  told  only  by  Matthew,  whose 
account  of  these  closing  scenes  contains  (as  we  shall 
have  occasion  again  to  remark)  several  legendary- 
items;  they  are  not  necessarily  unauthentic,  but  must 
be  received  with  reservation. 

3.   The  Crucifixion. 

The  place  where  Jesus  was  crucified  must  remain 
undetermined.    We  know  only  that  it  was  just  outside 


THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

the  city  (John  19:20;  Heb.  13:  12),  probably  near  a 
highway  (Mark  15:29),  and  called  Golgotha  (in 
Latin,  Calvaria)  which  means  a  skull.  Whether  it 
received  this  name  because  it  was  a  skull-shaped  hill 
(Mount  Calvary  is  a  fifth-century  expression),  or  be- 
cause it  was  the  place  of  public  execution,  we  do  not 
know.  In  the  time  of  Constantine  the  spot  was  sup- 
posed to  be  where  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulcher 
now  stands,  inside  the  present  walls.  A  popular  identi- 
fication today  is  the  hill  just  north  of  the  city,  above 
the  grotto  of  Jeremiah. 

Mark  says,  "  It  was  the  third  hour,  and  they  cruci- 
fied him'*  (15:25).  This  seems  contradicted  by 
John  who  says,  "It  was  about  the  sixth  hour"  (19: 
14),  when  Pilate  gave  orders  that  He  should  be  cruci- 
fied. The  easiest  explanation  is  that  John  reckoned 
time  as  we  do ;  the  final  sentence  then  would  be  passed 
"  about," — probably  after, — six  in  the  morning,  and 
the  crucifixion  would  be  at  nine.  All  three  Synoptists 
speak  of  darkness  lasting  from  the  sixth  to  the  ninth 
hour,  when  Jesus  died;  this  fixes  His  death  at  three 
in  the  afternoon. 

Stoning  was  the  usual  Jewish  form  of  capital  pun- 
ishment. Crucifixion  was  a  Roman  form,  borrowed 
perhaps  from  the  Persians  by  way  of  the  Greeks,  or 
perhaps  from  the  Carthaginians  who  used  it  exten- 
.  sively.  The  Romans  at  first  used  it  only  for  slaves  and 
aliens.  Tradition  says  that  the  cross  on  which  Jesus 
died  was  in  the  form  we  now  call  the  Latin  cross:  but 
it  was  not  the  tall  structure  of  heavy  sawn  beams  usu- 
ally shown  in  pictures.  Two  rough  sticks  carried  by 
the  victim, — the  upright  one  strong  enough  to  support 
his  weight  and  long. enough  to  raise  his  feet  from  the 
ground, — would  suffice.     (A  reed  was  long  enough  to 


THE  TRIAL  AND  CRUCIFIXION        293 

lift  the  sponge  to  Jesus'  lips  (Mark  15  :  36).  Even  a 
cross  of  this  weight  was  too  much  for  the  ebbing 
strength  of  Jesus;  and  the  centurion  impressed  a 
passerby  to  carry  it.  This  was  Simon,  a  man  of  Cyrene 
in  Africa  (but  probably  a  Jew,  not  a  negro),  who 
seems  to  have  become  a  Christian,— at  least  his  two 
sons  are  mentioned  as  if  they  were  well-known  per- 
sons in  the  circle  for  whom  Mark  wrote.  It  was, 
perhaps,  during  the  transfer  of  the  cross,  and  while 
the  women  were  expressing  sympathy  for  the  ex- 
hausted prisoner,  that  Jesus  spoke  His  words  of  sym- 
pathetic prophecy  about  their  own  sad   fate    (Luke 

23:27f.)- 

The  purpose  of  crucifixion  was  to  inflict  a  hngermg 
and  most  agonizing  death.    The  victim  was  nailed  to 
the  cross  before  it  was  raised  and  put  in  place.     A 
peg  in  the  center  of  the  upright  post  helped  to  sup- 
port the  body  which  otherwise  might  have  torn  loose 
from  the  nails.     The  crucified  might  live  for  two  or 
three  days,  screaming  and  cursing  in  pain.    Jesus  died 
at  the  end  of  six  hours,— so  soon  as  to  cause  sur- 
prise.   According  to  Stroud,  who  wrote  a  book  on  the 
subject,   He  died  literally  of  a  broken  heart.     The 
loud  cry  at  the  instant  of  death  (Mark  15  :  37)'  ^^^ 
the  mingled  blood  and  water   (serum)  which  flowed 
when  the  spear  pierced  His  corpse  (John  19:  34),  are 
thought  to   indicate  this   cause  of   death.     Whether 
Stroud  is  correct  or  not,  certainly  the  physical  and 
emotional  strain  of  the  preceding  hours  was  enough  to 
produce  a  speedy  death. 

The  seven  recorded  utterances  ("  the  seven  words  ") 
of  Jesus  during  the  crucifixion  are  precious  revela- 
tions of  what  was  passing  through  His  mind  in  these 
final  hours.    The  first  was  His  prayer  for  those  who 


294  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

crucified  Him,  "  Father,  forgive  them;  for  they  know 
not  what  they  do"  (Luke  23:34).  We  can  see  no 
reason  why  any  copyist  should  omit  this,  but  it  is  not 
found  in  some  of  the  oldest  manuscripts.  It  seems, 
therefore,  not  to  have  been  in  Luke's  account;  yet  it 
bears  the  stamp  of  truth  so  plainly  that  few  would 
reject  it.  Like  the  story  of  the  woman  taken  in  adul- 
tery, it  is  one  of  the  facts  preserved  by  tradition  alone 
until  inserted  in  a  gospel  later  on.  No  teaching  about 
forgiveness,  not  even  that  of  Jesus  Himself,  has  so 
powerfully  influenced  the  world  as  this  prayer  for  the 
brutal  Roman  soldiers  when  they  were  nailing  Him 
to  the  cross. 

The  next  word  was  the  promise  to  the  penitent 
thief,  "  Today  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise  " 
(Luke  23:43).  Probably  the  man  knew  something 
about  the  prophet  from  Nazareth;  and  the  inscription 
on  the  cross,  as  well  as  the  jeers  of  the  crowd  that  stood 
around,  brought  His  claims  to  mind  afresh.  But  the 
prayer,  "  Remember  me  when  thou  comest  into  thy 
kingdom,"  was  a  triumph  of  faith,  to  which  Jesus 
responded  as  He  always  did.  The  thief  prayed  that 
somehow,  somewhere,  in  the  unknown  future  when  all 
wrong  is  righted,  Jesus  would  not  forget  a  fellow 
sufferer ;  and  the  reply  was  that  this  very  day  his  desire 
should  be  satisfied. 

The  third  word  was  a  final  provision  for  His 
mother's  comfort.  The  disciples  had  all  fled  at  the 
arrest;  but  John  and  Peter  came  back  to  the  trial 
before  the  council.  Possibly  others  had  now  rallied, 
and  were  at  the  crucifixion,  standing  afar  off  (Luke 
23:49)  or  daring  to  venture  nearer.  The  Galilean 
women,  also,  were  there  at  the  foot  of  the  cross,  among 
them  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  the  mother  of  James  the 


THE  TRIAL  AND  CRUCIFIXION        295 

less  and  Joses,  Salome  the  mother  of  James  and  John 
(probably  the  same  as  "  his  mother's  sister  "  of  John 
19  :  25,  though  some  would  make  the  sister  to  be  Mary 
the  mother  of  James  the  less  and  Joses),  and  above 
all  Mary,  His  own  mother.  Except  for  this  incident 
we  could  not  know  that  she  was  one  of  the  devoted 
band  of  women  who  followed  Him.  Possibly,  how- 
ever, she  had  come  up  for  the  feast ;  we  know  this  was 
her  custom  earlier  (Luke  2 :  41).  He  dared  not  speak 
her  name  now,  nor  reveal  His  relationship,  lest  the 
hostile  crowd  insult  her;  but  with  "Woman,  behold, 
thy  son,"  and  "  Behold,  thy  mother,"  He  commended 
her  to  John,  who  straightway  led  her  from  the  scene 
(John  19:25-27).  Whether  this  meant  simply  that 
John  should  care  for  her  at  this  terribly  trying  hour, 
or  whether  henceforth  he  was  to  act  a  son's  part,  as 
later  tradition  says  he  did,  cannot  be  determined.  A 
few  weeks  later  Mary  is  mentioned  along  with  her 
sons,  as  if  they  were  living  together  (Acts  i :  14). 

The  darkness  which  at  noontime  settled  down  upon 
the  land  must  have  awed  the  jeering  spectators  into 
silence,  and  freed  the  last  hours  of  Jesus  from  their 
mockery.  And  not  until  just  as  the  darkness  was  lift- 
ing was  there  another  utterance  from  the  cross.  Then 
came  the  cry  with  an  anguish  like  that  of  Gethsemane, 
"My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?" 
(Mark  15:34).  The  words  are  the  opening  of  the 
twenty-second  psalm,  the  psalm  which  pictures  the 
anguish  of  the  cross  more  clearly  than  any  account  of 
the  evangelists.  What  they  meant  in  the  lips  of  Jesus, 
those  only  who  have  passed  through  deepest  spiritual 
suffering  for  the  sins  of  loved  ones  are  competent  to 
explain. 

The  next  word  from  the  cross,  "  I  thirst "  (John  19 : 


296  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

28),  seems  also  an  echo  of  the  same  psalm  (22:  15). 
It  moved  one  of  the  bystanders  to  press  a  sponge  full 
of  sour  wine  to  the  parched  lips.  Jesus  had  refused 
the  narcotic  drink,  wine  mingled  with  myrrh,  which 
was  offered  to  the  prisoners  before  they  were  crucified; 
He  would  not  enter  the  final  struggle  in  a  stupor.  But 
this  act  of  kindly  service  He  did  not  refuse;  there  was 
no  reason  why  He  should. 

The  last  two  words  followed  rapidly,  "  It  is  fin- 
ished "  (John  19 :  30),  which  some  would  connect  with 
the  closing  statement  of  that  same  twenty-second 
psalm,  and  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my 
spirit  "  (Luke  23  :  46;  cf.  Ps.  31:5).  "  And  he  bowed 
his  head  and  gave  up  his  spirit."  The  agony  of  the 
cross  was  ended. 

In  Matt.  27:51-53  we  are  told  that  the  death  of 
Christ  was  accompanied  by  various  portents, — "  the 
veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  two  from  the  top  to 
the  bottom;  and  the  earth  did  quake;  and  the  rocks 
were  rent;  and  the  tombs  were  opened;  and  many 
bodies  of  the  saints  that  had  fallen  asleep  were  raised; 
and  coming  forth  out  of  the  tomb  after  his  resurrection 
they  entered  into  the  holy  city  and  appeared  unto 
many."  All  this  is  peculiar  to  Matthew,  except  that 
Mark  and  Luke  give  the  rending  of  the  veil;  and  we 
have  already  noticed  that  Matthew  in  this  portion  of 
his  narrative  shows  a  fondness  for  the  purely  mar- 
vellous. Some  critics  try  to  explain  these  portents  as 
natural  events  connected  with  an  earthquake, — the 
darkness,  also,  being  the  gloom  preceding  an  earth- 
quake. Earthquakes  are  not  unusual  in  Palestine ;  and 
though  an  earthquake  could  not  rend  a  veil  or  cause 
the  dead  to  rise,  it  might  open  tombs,  or  break  the  lintel 
of  the  temple  door  (Jerome  says  that  the  Gospel  of  the 


THE  TRIAL  AND  CRUCIFIXION        297 

Hebrews  had  "  lintel  "  instead  of  "  veil  ").  Josephus 
tells  of  certain  portents  connected  with  the  temple  about 
this  time,  e.g.,  that  the  brazen  gates  opened  of  their 
own  accord.  The  objection  to  accepting  the  portents 
as  actual,  supernatural  events  is  their  uselessness  and, 
to  some  degree,  childishness.  Moreover,  the  rent  veil 
is  evidently  a  symbolical  statement  of  free  approach 
through  Christ  to  God  (cf.  Heb.  lo:  19-20).  Like- 
wise, that  saints  came  forth  from  their  tombs  after 
Christ's  resurrection  seems  to  be  only  another  way  of 
stating  that  the  risen  Christ  is  the  first  fruits  of  the 
dead  (I  Cor.  15:  23). 

The  centurion  in  charge  of  the  crucifixion  (and  ac- 
cording to  Matthew,  "those  that  were  with  him"), 
when  he  saw  how  Jesus  died,  testified,  "  Truly  this 
man  was  a  Son  of  God  "  (Mark  15  :  39).  What  did  he 
mean?  Possibly  simply  a  good  man, — so  Luke  puts 
it,  "Certainly  this  was  a  righteous  man"  (23:47); 
possibly  a  demigod,  for  such  would  be  his  understand- 
ing of  the  charge  that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  divine; 
possibly  a  king, — even  as  the  title  above  the  cross  indi- 
cated,— for  the  Roman  emperors  claimed  to  be  sons 
of  the  gods, 

Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  "a  rich  man"  (Matt.),  "a 
councillor  of  honorable  estate  "  (Mark),  "  a  good  man 
and  a  righteous"  (Luke),  "a  disciple  of  Jesus,  but 
secretly  for  fear  of  the  Jews"  (John),  seems  to  have 
been  at  the  cross;  for  he  promptly  knew  of  Jesus' 
death.  He  asked  Pilate  for  the  body,  and  with  the 
help  of  Nicodemus  prepared  it  for  burial,  and  placed 
it  in  his  own  new  tomb  in  a  garden  near  the  cross. 

Matthew  alone  tells  how  the  chief  priests  and  Phari- 
sees, fearing  that  the  disciples  would  steal  the  body 
and  then  declare  that  there  had  been  a  resurrection, 


S98  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

gained  permission  from  Pilate  to  seal  the  tomb  and  set 
a  watch,  and  did  this  "  on  the  morrow," — probably 
Saturday  morning,  though  possibly  Friday  evening 
(Matt.  27:  62-66).  As  there  was  no  reason  why  the 
Sanhedrin  should  be  thus  apprehensive,  since  the  fol- 
lowers of  Jesus  had  no  thought  of  a  resurrection  even 
when  they  found  the  tomb  empty  on  Sunday  morning, 
this  incident, — including  Matthew's  account  of  what 
happened  to  the  watchers  (28:2-4,  11-15), — should 
be  put  among  the  later  traditions.  The  chief  priests 
and  Pharisees  undoubtedly  ate  their  Passover  suppers 
that  Friday  night  with  tranquillity  and  self-satisfac- 
tion, and  sang  most  gratefully  the  Hallelujah  Psalms. 
For  the  man  who  had  defied  their  power,  broken  their 
laws  and  led  the  people  far  astray  was  dead  and 
buried;  and  His  disciples  were  scattered  in  terror. 


XIX 

THE  RESURRECTION 

THE  original  ending  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  has 
been  hopelessly  lost,  and  neither  of  the  present 
endings  is  more  than  a  feeble  attempt  by  later  copyists 
to  supply  some  sort  of  a  conclusion.  The  loss  is  greatly 
to  be  regretted;  yet  if  Matthew  and  Luke  used  the 
Gospel  of  Mark  here  as  one  of  their  sources,  as  they 
did  up  to  this  point,  we  may  suppose  they  have  incor- 
porated in  their  narrative  the  facts  contained  in  the 
lost  ending.  Fortunately  we  have  for  this  chapter  in 
Christ's  life  an  additional  source, — the  list  of  resur- 
rection appearances  given  by  Paul  in  I  Cor.  15 :  i-ii. 
It  is  a  brief  reference  to  his  fuller  oral  account,  and 
apparently  does  not  profess  to  be  complete;  but  it  is 
most  valuable  because  of  its  early  date  (I  Corinthians 
was  written  not  later  than  58  a.d.,  and  possibly  as  early 
as  50  A.D.),  and  because  of  Paul's  interest  in  the  facts, 
and  his  opportunity  to  learn  the  truth  about  them.  The 
various  accounts  of  the  resurrection  appearances  are 
fragmentary,  and  not  always  easy  to  harmonize;  but 
this  need  not  be  reckoned  an  argument  against  their 
truthfulness,  if  we  can  see  good  reasons  why  they 
should  be  so.  Probably  there  were  other  appearances 
besides  those  recorded.  No  one  attempted  to  make  a 
full  list  of  them;  and  in  proportion  as  the  belief  in  a 
living  and  present  Christ  was  established,  and  was 
confirmed  by  spiritual  experience,  the  need  of  the  origi- 
nal evidence  was  not  felt. 

299 


300  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

I.    Appearances  of  the  Risen  Christ. 

Before  discussing  the  credibility  of  the  resurrection 
story,  it  is  advisable  to  arrange  and  harmonize  its 
incidents  as  far  as  possible,  Paul's  list,  though  incom- 
plete, seems  to  follow  the  historical  order,  and  helps 
us  somewhat  in  determining  the  order  in  the  Gospels. 
The  appearances  seem  to  have  been  as  follows : 
^  i).    To  Mary  Magdalene. 

The  most  confused  portion  of  the  whole  narrative  is 
the  record  of  what  happened  to  the  women  who  went 
to  the  tomb  on  Sunday  morning  before  sunrise.  This 
is  natural;  the  report  of  the  excited  women  was  im- 
perfectly understood  and  only  partially  credited,  and 
the  reports  of  Peter  and  the  apostles  were  more  gen- 
erally circulated.  That  the  appearance  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene is  a  later  invention  is  improbable;  invention 
would  have  assigned  the  first  sight  of  the  risen  Lord 
to  a  more  prominent  person.  As  an  attempt, — per- 
haps useless, — to  harmonize  the  four  accounts  we  may 
suppose  the  following  to  have  been  the  actual  course  of 
events : 

The  women  go  together  towards  the  sepulcher  bring- 
ing the  spices  they  have  prepared;  as  they  draw  near 
they  see  the  stone  rolled  away;  Mary  Magdalene  at 
once  concludes  that  the  tomb  has  been  rifled,  and  runs 
to  report  this  sacrilege  to  the  apostles.  The  other 
women  come  to  the  tomb,  and  receive  the  message  of 
an  angel  that  Jesus  is  risen  and  will  go  before  His 
disciples  into  Galilee  where  they  may  see  Him;  then 
filled  with  fear  they  flee  from  the  place.  Peter  and 
John,  stirred  by  Mary's  report,  hasten  to  the  spot  and 
enter  the  tomb.  The  orderly  arrangement  of  the  grave- 
clothes  convinces  John  that  the  body  has  not  been 


THE  RESURRECTION  301 

stolen ;  and  he  begins  imperfectly  to  believe  that  there 
has  been  a  resurrection.  They  return  home.  Mary, 
coming  back  again  to  the  tomb,  sees  two  angels,  and 
then  sees  and,  when  addressed  by  name,  recognizes 
Jesus  Himself.  The  reason  for  His  prohibition  when 
she  clings  to  His  feet, — "  Touch  me  not ;  for  I  am  not 
yet  ascended  unto  the  Father  "  (John  20:  17), — is  not 
evident.  Was  her  act  the  instinctive  expression  of  a 
wish  to  keep  Him  with  her  in  resumption  of  His  life 
before  the  crucifixion,  or  was  it  an  act  of  worship 
(cf.  Matt.  28 : 9)  such  as  He  was  not  ready  to  receive 
because  He  had  not  yet  become  her  ascended  Lord  ? 

2).    To  Peter. 

The  angel's  message,  "  Tell  his  disciples  and  Peter  " 
(Mark  16:  7),  prepares  us  for  a  special  manifestation 
to  Peter,  who  is  weighed  down  with  shame  over  his 
denial,  and  needs  to  be  assured  that  he  is  forgiven  and 
restored  to  a  place  among  the  disciples ;  but  we  have  no 
record  of  it  except  Paul's,  "  He  appeared  to  Cephas  " 
(I  Cor.  15:5),  and  the  statement  of  the  Eleven  on 
Easter  evening,  "  The  Lord  is  risen  indeed,  and  hath 
appeared  unto  Simon"  (Luke  24:34).  The  latter 
shows  that  the  appearance  to  Peter  was  the  first  sure 
ground  of  a  belief  that  Jesus  had  risen :  Peter's  testi- 
mony bore  weight,  when  that  of  Mary  Magdalene  did 
not.  Thus,  being  converted,  he  strengthened  the 
brethren  (Luke  22:32). 

3).    To  Cleopas  and  Another. 

This  was  on  Easter  afternoon  when  these  two  dis- 
ciples were  walking  to  Emmaus,  a  village  (location  dis- 
puted) sixty  furlongs  from  Jerusalem,  and  apparently 
the  home  of  one  or  both  (Luke  24:i3f.).  Their 
words  to  Jesus  reveal  the  mingled  hope  and  despair 
that  filled  the  minds  of  all  the  disciples  on  Easter  day. 


302  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

Jesus  was  a  mighty  prophet  certainly;  but  His  death 
proves  they  were  mistaken  in  believing  Him  to  be  the 
one  "  who  was  to  redeem  Israel  "  (note  the  Jewish 
form  of  their  Messianic  expectation)  ;  and  yet, — what 
means  this  strange  story  of  an  empty  tomb  and  angelic 
messages?  The  discourse  of  Jesus,  pointing  out 
prophecies  of  the  Messiah's  agony  and  death  prelimi- 
nary to  his  entrance  into  glory,  fires  their  hearts  with 
hope ;  but  it  is  not  until  at  the  evening  meal  He  blesses 
and  breaks  the  bread  in  the  old,  familiar  way,  that 
they  recognize  the  mysterious  stranger  to  be  their 
risen  Lord.  And  when  the  recognition  is  reached,  He 
vanishes;  His  work  with  them  is  completed.  (Renan's 
explanation  of  this  appearance  is  amusingly  absurd. 
The  stranger  was  simply  some  pious  man  well  versed  in 
the  Scriptures.  The  evening  meal  recalled  Jesus  so 
strongly,  that  the  two  fell  into  a  deep  reverie,  and 
scarcely  noticed  that  their  companion, — eager  to  con- 
tinue his  journey, — had  left  them.  After  his  departure 
they  roused  up,  and  were  sure  that  it  was  Jesus,  and 
that  He  had  miraculously  vanished!) 

Why  did  they  fail  to  recognize  Him  until  the  end? 
Mark  16:12  says,  "He  was  manifested  in  another 
form  ";  but  this  is  a  later  explanation.  Luke  24:  16 
says,  "  Their  eyes  were  holden  that  they  should  not 
know  him  ";  but  this  seems  like  one  of  Luke's  notes  of 
apology.  Mary  Magdalene,  when  He  first  spoke  to 
her,  thought  He  was  the  gardener;  but  she  had  not 
turned  to  look  at  Him,  and  was  overwhelmed  with 
grief.  These  two  disciples  may  not  have  known  Him 
intimately ;  and  with  their  minds  preoccupied  with  the 
belief  that  He  was  dead,  they  may  have  failed  to  recog- 
nize Him,  though  one  of  the  apostles  would  have 
known  Him  at  once.    Or,  of  course,  it  may  be  that  He 


THE  RESURRECTION  303 

was  in  some  way  changed,  though  no  other  account  of 
His  appearance  indicates  this. 

4).    To  the  Ten  and  Others. 

Luke  says  this  appearance  was  to  "  the  Eleven  and 
them  that  were  with  them"  (24:33),  but  John  ex- 
plains that  Thomas  was  absent.  Either  Luke  did  not 
know  this,  or  he  used  the  term  "  the  Eleven  "  as  equiva- 
lent to  "  the  Apostles  " ;  in  Paul's  list  it  is  probably  the 
one  "  to  the  Twelve." 

The  place  was  a  room  in  Jerusalem,  possibly  the 
chamber  of  the  Last  Supper; — and  the  doors  were  shut 
for  fear  of  the  Jews.  The  disciples  were  drawn  to- 
gether by  the  glad  news  that  Jesus  had  risen  and 
appeared  to  Peter.  Cleopas  and  his  companion  were 
relating  their  own  experience,  when  suddenly  Jesus 
stood  in  their  midst  with  the  customary  Oriental  greet- 
ing, "  Peace  unto  you."  Despite  their  belief  that  He 
had  risen,  they  were  frightened,  and  with  difficulty 
could  be  convinced  that  they  beheld  Jesus  in  the  flesh 
and  not  a  ghost.  It  was  the  old  panic,  experienced  on 
the  Galilean  lake  a  year  before  (Matt.  14:26).  It 
was  succeeded  by  great  joy:  then  followed  a  divine 
commission,  given  to  all,  and  the  bestowal  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  an  act  which  reminds  us  of  the  account  of 
man's  creation  (Gen.  2:7).  Did  it  typify  a  new  and 
still  higher  creation? 

These  four  appearances  on  Easter  Sunday  are  full 
of  little  touches  so  true  psychologically  as  to  make 
us  believe  that  the  story  cannot  be  the  crude  product 
of  later  imagination.  E.g.,  Mary  Magdalene  feels  that 
men  not  women  must  deal  with  the  startling  situation : 
John,  the  boy  disciple,  outruns  Peter  but  hesitates  to 
enter  the  tomb  until  unconsciously  influenced  by  the 
older  man's  act;  the  appearance  to  the  penitent  Peter 


304  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

is  a  private  matter  between  him  and  his  Master  (imagi- 
nation in  later  days  would  have  filled  with  details  this 
experience  of  the  chief  apostle)  ;  the  two  on  the  way 
to  Emmaus  are  so  full  of  their  sorrow  that  they  are 
surprised  the  stranger  is  ignorant  of  it,  and  after  they 
have  recognized  Jesus  they  cannot  stop  even  to  eat 
before  carrying  the  news  back  to  the  Eleven;  the 
despondent  Thomas  not  only  refuses  to  accept  the  tid- 
ings of  Mary  and  Peter  but  shuts  himself  away  from 
the  rest  because  he  cannot  endure  their  exultation. 
Far  more  than  this,  however,  "the  appearances  on 
Easter  Day,  regarded  as  a  whole,  bear  the  stamp  of 
the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ;  the  Easter  sayings  are  such 
as  no  sane  criticism  can  attribute  to  the  imagination 
of  the  Apostolic  Age.  It  needs  a  sturdy  scepticism  to 
doubt  that  these  narratives  rest  on  a  solid  basis  of 
fact,  or  that  words  so  characteristic  of  the  great  Master 
are  in  substance  the  words  of  the  risen  Christ " 
(Swete). 

5).    To  Thomas  with  the  Others. 

This  took  place  a  week  later,  apparently  in  the  same 
room  and  at  the  same  hour, — Sunday  evening.  The 
first  day  of  the  week  was  becoming  full  of  sacred  asso- 
ciations with  the  risen  Lord.  The  very  early  Epistle 
of  Barnabas  says  that  ascension,  also,  was  on  a  Sunday 
(in  which  case  we  must  treat  "  forty  days  "  as  a  round 
number)  ;  and  Dr.  Briggs  finds  reasons  for  believing 
that  each  Sunday  until  the  ascension  was  marked  by  at 
least  one  of  the  recorded  appearances.  "  These  appear- 
ances of  Jesus  on  successive  Sundays,"  he  says,  "  may 
have  given  origin  to  the  assembling  of  Christians  on 
that  day,  and  also  to  the  use  of  the  term,  the  Lord's 
Day." 

The  Galilean  disciples,  we  may  be  sure,  had  already 


THE  RESURRECTION  305 

departed  on  their  homeward  journey;  and  the  apostles 
seemed  to  be  disregarding  the  message  of  Easter  morn- 
ing (Mark  16:7)  by  Hngering  in  Jerusalem.  Pos- 
sibly Thomas  refused  to  depart  until  his  doubts  were 
removed,  and  the  others  were  unwilling  to  leave  him 
behind.  He  was  always  slow  to  believe  and  incHned  to 
take  a  desponding  view;  but  his  present  reluctance  to 
accept  the  testimony  of  his  companions  seems  caused 
less  by  disinclination  than  by  a  fear  that  their  eager 
desire  had  made  them  self-deceived.  Jesus  showed  that 
He  knew  the  test  Thomas  had  laid  down;  and  He 
offered  to  submit  to  it,  but  warned  him  against  yielding 
to  his  special  temptation  to  become  sceptical  (John 
20 :  27).  Such  knowledge  and  rebuke  were  enough  for 
Thomas;  he  believed  without  applying  the  test,  and 
made  the  highest  confession  of  faith, — "  My  Lord  and 
my  God." 

6).    To  Seven  by  the  Lake. 

These  seven  were  Peter,  Thomas,  Nathanael  (Bar- 
tholomew), James,  John  and  two  others:  according 
to  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  the  two  were  Matthew  and 
Andrew. 

To  them  as  they  were  fishing  in  the  gray  morning 
twilight  Jesus  called,  in  familiar  fisherman  phrase, 
"  Boys,  you  haven't  caught  any  fish,  have  you?  ";  and 
gave  directions  where  to  cast  the  net.  Thereupon 
they  took  such  a  multitude  of  fishes,  one  hundred 
and  fifty-three  great  ones,  that  John  recalled  the  open- 
ing scene  of  the  Galilean  ministry  (Luke  5:6),  and 
said  to  Peter,  "  It  is  the  Lord."  Peter  was  "  stripped  " 
for  his  work ;  but,  putting  on  his  frock,  he  impetuously 
waded  ashore  without  waiting  the  slow  movements  of 
the  net  and  boat.  There  was  a  mysterious  reserve  at 
the  morning  meal  which  Jesus  served  them ;  they  knew 


306  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

it  was  the  Lord,  and  yet  they  dared  neither  reveal  their 
knowledge  nor  dissemble  it;  and  as  on  certain  occa- 
sions in  the  old  days  (e.g.,  Mark  lo:  32;  Luke  9:  45), 
they  waited  in  awe  and  silence  until  He  should  disclose 
what  was  in  His  thoughts.  His  special  mission  was 
with  Peter;  and  this  time  it  was  a  public  not  a  private 
matter.  On  Easter  He  had  restored  him  to  disciple- 
ship  ;  now  He  restored  him  to  apostleship, — "  feed  my 
sheep."  The  thrice  repeated,  "  Lovest  thou  me?  "  cor- 
responds to  the  thrice  repeated  denial  by  Peter  in 
the  court  of  the  highpriest. 

Note  that,  important  as  it  is,  we  nearly  failed  to 
have  a  record  of  this  scene.  John  added  it  to  his 
gospel  as  an  afterthought  to  explain  how  the  saying 
arose  that  he  himself  would  live  till  the  second  coming 
of  the  Lord. 

7).    To  the  Eleven  and  more  than  Five  Hundred. 

The  appearance  reported  in  Matt.  28 :  16-20  and  that 
in  I  Cor,  15:6  are  probably  the  same.  A  prearranged 
meeting  for  the  apostles  alone  would  seem  unnecessary ; 
and  certainly  the  "  some "  who  doubted  while  the 
others  worshipped  could  not  be  any  of  the  Eleven,  for 
their  doubts  had  already  been  removed.  Among  the 
five  hundred,  who  for  the  first  time  were  beholding 
their  risen  Master,  some  would  be  as  slow  as  Thomas 
to  believe.  That  Jesus  sought  to  remove  their  unbelief 
by  a  clearer  manifestation  of  Himself  is  hinted  in  the 
narrative, — "  they  saw  him,  .  .  .  some  doubted ;  and 
Jesus  came  to  them  " ;  and  that  doubt  ended  in  full 
belief  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Paul  reckons  all 
the  five  hundred  among  his  witnesses,  and  says  that 
most  of  them  are  still  alive  to  offer  their  testimony. 

This  gathering  of  a  great  body  of  His  disciples  on 
"  the  mountain  "  in  Galilee  recalls  the  time  in  the  Gali- 


THE  RESURRECTION  307 

lean  ministry  when  a  similar  body  was  gathered,  perhaps 
on  the  same  height,  and  Jesus  appointed  the  Twelve 
to  be  apostles.  The  purpose  for  which  He  brought 
them  together  now  was  similar  to  that  of  the  earlier 
meeting,  though  with  clearer  spiritual  significance;  it 
was  a  reappointment  of  leaders  for  His  church,  but 
with  greater  power  and  a  wider  field.  Peter  had  been 
restored  to  his  place  and  given  his  commission  in  the 
presence  of  his  brethren  by  the  lake;  now  all  the 
Eleven  were  restored  to  their  apostleship,  and  given 
their  commission  in  the  presence  of  the  great  assembly 
of  disciples  on  the  mountain.  And  in  a  new  sermon 
on  the  mount  Jesus  mapped  out  the  future  programme 
of  the  church,  and  gave  the  formula  of  baptism  (some 
critics  doubt  this,  but  with  no  strong  reasons),  closing 
with  the  promise,  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world." 

It  was  here  in  the  presence  of  the  apostles  and  the 
church  that  Jesus  made  the  most  remarkable  of  all  His 
statements  about  Himself :  "  All  authority  hath  been 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth."  Throughout 
His  ministry  there  had  been  a  constantly  increasing 
revelation  of  His  authority:  to  forgive  sins  (Mark  2 : 
10),  to  act  as  final  judge  (John  5:27),  to  fix  the 
limits  of  His  own  earthly  life  (John  10:  18),  to  give 
eternal  life  (John  17:2);  but  this  includes  and  far 
surpasses  all.  Nothing  that  Paul  has  written  in  his 
attempt  to  state  the  sovereignty  of  Christ  begins  to 
reach  the  compass  of  these  simple  words  of  his  Lord. 
"  Human  thought  loses  itself  in  the  attempt  to  under- 
stand what  must  be  comprehended  in  such  authority  as 
this"  (Plummer). 

8).    To  James. 

This  appearance,  which  is  mentioned  only  by  Paul 


308  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

(I  Cor.  15:7),  was  probably  to  the  brother  of  Jesus, 
not  to  either  of  the  two  apostles  of  that  name.  All 
details  are  unknown;  but,  remembering  that  His 
brethren  did  not  believe  on  Him  during  His  ministry, 
we  are  justified  in  supposing  that  it  had  something  to 
do  with  creating  their  later  belief.  The  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews  has  a  curious  story  of  this  appear- 
ance, not  worth  repeating. 

9).    To  the  Eleven  at  Ascension. 

The  apostles  were  now  back  in  Jerusalem,  the  place 
where  they  were  to  begin  work  under  their  great  com- 
mission. There  seem  to  have  been  several  appear- 
ances here ;  but  we  cannot  distinguish  those  before  the 
ascension  from  the  one  at  the  ascension.  Luke  dove- 
tails them  in  his  gospel,  and  goes  into  no  full  details  in 
Acts.  It  is  instructive,  however,  to  note  that  if  the 
author  of  the  Third  Gospel  had  not  also  written  the 
Book  of  Acts,  some  critics  might  argue  that  he  knew  of 
no  appearances  except  those  on  Easter  Day,  and  that  he 
supposed  the  ascension  took  place  at  the  close  of  that 
day ;  whereas,  in  Acts  he  states  plainly  that  the  appear- 
ances covered  a  space  of  forty  days,  and  then  were 
concluded  by  the  ascension.  This  shows  the  danger 
of  relying  upon  the  argument  from  silence,  which  is 
used  so  often  and  so  confidently. 

Apparently  the  period  was  one  of  fuller  instruction 
about  matters  which  the  apostles  could  not  understand 
before  His  death  and  resurrection,  and  was  their  final 
preparation  for  the  great  work  that  lay  before  them. 
Much  remained  to  be  taught  them.  The  old  idea  of  a 
temporal  kingdom  had  not  wholly  disappeared  (Acts 
1:6);  and  the  words  of  Jesus,  *'  speaking  the  things 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  God"  (Acts  1:3),  were 
needed.     The  work  of  the  apostles  was  clearly  set 


THE  RESURRECTION  309 

before  them:  "Ye  shall  be  my  witnesses,  both  in 
Jerusalem  and  in  all  Judea  and  Samaria,  and  unto  the 
uttermost  part  of  the  earth  "  :  and  power  for  this  work 
by  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  promised  them 

(Acts  i:8).  ^.  .^    ^ 

The  ascension  differed  from  the  earlier  manifesta- 
tions of  Jesus  only  in  the  way  in  which  He  departed 
from  the  disciples.     Instead  of  suddenly  vanishing, 
"  he  was  taken  up,  and  a  cloud  received  him  out  of 
their  sight  "  (Acts  1:9)-    With  their  Jewish  idea  that 
heaven  is  above  the  earth  and  that  a  cloud  is  the  mani- 
festation of   Jehovah,   this   meant  to  them  that  He 
"  was  received  up  into  heaven  and  sat  down  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  "  (Mark  15 :  19)-    Here,  again,  it  is  in- 
structive to  note  that  the  Third  Gospel  tells  the  story 
most  simply :  "  It  came  to  pass,  while  he  blessed  them, 
he  parted  from  them;  and  they  returned  to  Jerusalem  " 
(Luke  24:  51  f.)     Had  the  later  book  of  Acts  been 
by  another  author,  its  additional  details,— both  the 
ascension  and  the  message  of  the  angels,— would  be 
pointed  out  as  a  sure  proof  that  the  story  of  Jesus 
last  appearance  had  grown  more  marvellous  as  time 
went  on. 

10).    To  Paul. 

Whether  this  was  of  the  same  character  as  the  fore- 
going ones  must  be  discussed  later.  Certainly  the 
development  of  belief  in  the  resurrection  was  complete 
long  before  Paul  was  converted;  and  details  of  this 
app'^earance  belong  to  a  life  of  Paul  rather  than  to  a 
life  of  Jesus. 

2.    Origin  of  Belief  in  the  Risen  Christ. 

Beyond  all  question  the  early  Christians  believed 
and  proclaimed  that  Jesus  arose  from  the  dead.     No 


310  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST, 

other  explanation  of  the  rise  of  the  Christian  church 
is  possible.  The  crucifixion  of  Jesus  would  have  been 
for  his  followers  an  end  of  all  their  hopes,  and  a  proof 
of  the  falsity  of  His  teachings  concerning  Himself 
and  His  Messianic  reign,  unless  belief  in  His  resur- 
rection had  overcome  the  consternation  and  despair 
caused  by  His  death,  and  explained,  or  at  least  dis- 
pelled, the  ignominy  of  the  cross.  Those  who  deny 
the  fact  of  the  resurrection  admit  this;  Renan  says, 
"  '  He  is  risen ! '  has  been  the  basis  of  the  faith  of  hu- 
manity " ;  and  Harnack  says,  "  The  primitive  com- 
munity called  Jesus  its  Lord  because  He  had  sacrificed 
His  life  for  it,  and  because  its  members  were  con- 
vinced that  He  had  been  raised  from  the  dead,  and  was 
then  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  God." 

If  we  refuse  to  credit  the  gospel  narrative  and  hold 
that  Jesus  did  not  rise  from  the  dead,  we  must  in  some 
way  explain  the  origin  of  this  belief  in  His  resurrec- 
tion. And  the  explanation  that  the  story  was  a  myth, 
a  legend,  a  tradition,  cannot  be  offered  here, — as  it  is 
in  the  case  of  Jesus'  miracles, — because  myths  and  the 
rest  require  time  for  their  development,  but  this  belief 
in  the  resurrection  arose  before  the  Day  of  Pentecost. 
The  assignment  of  a  late  date  to  the  Gospels  in  no  way 
helps  towards  an  explanation,  though  evidently  those 
who  do  not  believe  that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead  must 
treat  the  gospel  story  as  late  and  garbled. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  theories  accounting 
for  the  belief  in  the  resurrection,  if  that  belief  was  not 
based  on  fact. 

A.    Fraud. 

The  fraud  may  have  been  on  the  part  of  Jesus  who 
was  not  really  dead  when  placed  in  the  tomb,  and  re- 
vived enough  so  that  He  was  able  to  come  forth  and  act 


THE  RESURRECTION  Sll 

the  part  of  a  risen  Christ  in  Jerusalem  and  in  Galilee. 
This  theory  needs  little  discussion.  The  moral  char- 
acter of  Jesus  makes  it  impossible.  Moreover,  if  a 
man  who  had  suffered  what  Jesus  did  could  have 
strength  enough  to  act  such  a  part,  what  became  of 
Him  later  on?  Did  He  die  in  secret  after  a  few  weeks, 
or  did  He  deliberately  shut  Himself  away  from  His 
disciples  that  they  might  think  He  had  ascended  to 
heaven?  To  state  the  problem  seems  enough  to  show 
its  absurdity. 

Again,  the  fraud  may  have  been  on  the  part  of  the 
apostles,  who  knew  that  Jesus  was  dead,  but  falsely 
and  persistently  affirmed  that  He  had  risen.  This  is 
equally  incredible.  There  was  nothing  to  gain  by  such 
deception  and  men  do  not  suffer  persecution  and  mar- 
tyrdom for  what  they  know  to  be  a  lie.  And  psycho- 
logically it  is  impossible  that  the  disciples  consecrated 
their  lives  to  preaching  the  sublime  doctrines  of  Jesus, 
while  they  carried  in  their  hearts  the  secret  that  the 
main  fact  to  which  they  pointed  in  proof  of  the  truth 
of  the  message  was  a  lie  of  their  own  invention. 

B.    Hysteria.  -f" 

This  is  the  well-known  theory  of  Renan.  Mary 
Magdalene,  hysterical  and  most  devoted,  fancies  she 
sees  and  hears  her  Lord  as  she  stands  weeping  by  the 
empty  tomb.  "  The  miracle  of  love  is  accomplished ; 
the  resurrection  has  its  first  direct  witness."  She  tells 
the  story  to  the  rest ;  and  they  fall  into  an  excited  state 
in  which  they,  too,  begin  to  see  and  hear  a  risen  Jesus. 
And  so  by  the  contagion  of  hysteria  the  proofs  of  the 
resurrection  are  created.  (A  variant  of  the  theory 
makes  Peter  the  first  hysteriac.) 

This  picture  of  the  state  of  mind  of  the  apostles  is 
contrary  to  the  whole  gospel  record.    Everything  indi- 


V 


512  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

cates  that  they  were  prosaic,  sensible  men,  in  no  way 
indined  to  hysteria  and  delusion.  Moreover,  to 
imagine  a  resurrection,  one  must  be  expecting  it;  and 
apparently  they  were  sorrowing  without  hope,  and 
could  with  difficulty  be  made  to  realize  that  their 
Master  had  really  arisen.  Then,  too,  an  epidemic  of 
hysteria  does  not  follow  the  course  described  in  the 
gospel  story.  It  neither  begins  so  suddenly  and  vio- 
lently as  the  events  of  Easter  Day  would  necessitate, 
nor  runs  its  course  so  quickly  as  to  end  in  forty  days ; 
nor  does  it  leave  its  victims  in  the  tranquil,  strong, 
practical  frame  of  mind  with  which  the  apostles  took 
up  their  great  work  of  witness-bearing. 

The  question  how  the  tomb  came  to  be  empty,  and 
what  became  of  the  body  of  Jesus,  is  one  Renan  admits 
he  cannot  answer.  He  suggests  that  there  was  "  some 
little  deceit  in  the  matter."  Possibly  Mary  of  Bethany 
had  carried  away  the  corpse.  The  napkin  so  carefully 
folded  "  would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  a  female 
hand  had  slipped  in  there.  And  what  did  it  matter 
definitively?  The  result  alone  counts  in  such  a  mat- 
ter." Thus  he  solves  a  serious  difficulty  by  a  shrug 
of  the  shoulders. 

C.    A  Heavenly  Vision. 

This  is  the  theory  of  Keim  and  many  others.  There 
was  no  bodily  resurrection;  but  to  Peter  and  the  rest 
Jesus  granted  a  vision  of  Himself  in  His  spiritual 
and  glorified  state, — "  a  telegram  from  heaven  "  assur- 
ing them  that  He  had  triumphed  over  death:  and  in 
later  days  these  visions  were  changed  in  the  telling 
into  appearances  in  the  flesh.  Much  is  made  of  the 
vision  granted  to  Paul  which  is  declared  to  have  been 
purely  spiritual,  thus  proving  the  earlier  ones  to  have 
been  the  same. 


THE  RESURRECTION  SIS 

This  theory  can  be  held  by  those  who  accept  Jesus 
as  the  divine  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  may  help  some 
who  stumble  at  a  bodily  resurrection.  But  it  can 
be  held  only  by  rejecting  the  record,  which  unques- 
tionably tells  of  appearances  of  Jesus  in  the  flesh.  If 
the  Gospels  are  of  the  first  century,  how  could  visions 
be  thus  transformed  into  physical  appearances  within 
the  lifetime  of  some  who  heard  Peter  and  the  others 
tell  their  story?  Would  not  the  tendency  of  later 
thought  be  to  change  a  physical  manifestation  into  a 
spiritual  one  rather  than  the  reverse?  Since  the  early 
Christians  were  accustomed  to  think  of  their  glorified 
Lord  as  still  in  their  midst  and  able  to  reveal  Himself 
spiritually,  why  should  they  imagine  that  during  the 
first  weeks  after  His  death  He  revealed  Himself  in  a 
different  way? 

As  regards  the  appearance  to  Paul,  which  undoubt- 
edly he  held  to  be  of  the  same  nature  as  the  others,  the 
chief  statement  relied  upon  to  prove  that  it  was  purely 
spiritual  is  Galatians  i :  15-16,  "  It  was  the  good  pleas- 
ure of  God,  who  separated  me  even  from  my  mother's 
womb  and  called  me  through  His  grace,  to  reveal  His 
Son  in  me  that  I  might  preach  Him  among  the  Gen- 
tiles." This  is  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  revela- 
tion of  Jesus  to  Paul  at  Damascus  was  internal  and 
therefore  spiritual.  But  the  text  points  out  three  dis- 
tinct stages  in  Paul's  spiritual  history.  It  says  that 
God  set  him  apart  for  his  work  as  missionary  among 
the  Gentiles  even  before  his  birth;  then  He  graciously 
called  him  to  it, — undoubtedly  by  the  experience  near 
Damascus ;  and  then  in  His  good  pleasure  He  provided 
a  revelation  of  His  Son  in  Paul, — not  to  Paul, — which 
was  his  final  preparation  to  be  an  evangelist.  What  is 
meant  by  this  revelation  of  Christ  in  Paul  is  evident 


314  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

from  a  later  verse  of  this  same  epistle  where  Paul  says, 
"It  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in 
me"  (Gal.  2:20).  The  indwelling  of  Christ  in  each 
believer  was  the  very  central  truth  of  Paul's  theology. 
"  Christ  saves  a  man,  he  says,  by  entering  and  taking 
up  His  abode  within  him,  by  binding  him  indissolubly 
to  Himself,  so  that  it  is  no  longer  he  that  lives,  but 
Christ  that  lives  in  him,  so  that  whatever  Christ  does 
he  does,  and  whatever  he  does  Christ  does  "  (McGif- 
fert).  The  great  message  of  his  apostleship  to  the 
Gentiles  was  "  Christ  in  you,  the  hope  of  glory  "  (Col. 
1 :  27;  Rom.  8 :  10),  a  message  proclaimed  by  his  daily 
living  as  well  as  by  his  words  (Phil.  4:9). 

The  passage  from  Galatians,  then,  tells  nothing  about 
the  nature  of  the  appearance  to  Paul ;  and  no  other  pas- 
sage in  his  writings  proves  that  it  was  spiritual. 
Stephen  in  the  hour  of  martyrdom  had  a  spiritual 
vision  of  Jesus,  as  Paul  had  sad  reason  never  to  for- 
get; yet  it  is  omitted  from  Paul's  list,  though  nothing 
would  have  been  more  natural  and  impressive  than  to 
place  it  immediately  before  the  appearance  to  himself, 
had  the  two  been  of  the  same  character.  Paul  had  his 
own  spiritual  visions  of  Jesus, — one  of  them  in  Corinth 
itself  (Acts  18 :  9)  ;  but  he  does  not  mention  them  as  a 
proof  of  the  resurrection  because  they  are  not  a  proof 
,;  of  it.  Spiritual  visions  prove  simply  the  continued 
//  spiritual  existence  of  Jesus;  and  neither  Paul  nor  his 
//  Corinthian  readers  seriously  doubted  that  there  is  life 
^1  beyond  the  grave.  What  Paul  needed  to  establish 
his  faith  in  Jesus  was  proof  of  an  actual  resurrection. 
The  cross  was  a  stumbling  block  to  him,  as  to  every 
Jew;  a  crucified  Messiah  seemed  absurd.  True,  the 
Christians  whom  he  persecuted  were  declaring  that 
their  Master  had  proved  Himself  the  Son  of  God  by 


THE  RESURRECTION  815 

coming  forth  from  the  tomb,  triumphant  over  death; 
but  the  story  was  incredible.  Nothing  short  of  a  per- 
sonal experience  like  that  which  the  apostles  described 
could  overcome  Paul's  scepticism;  before  he  could 
preach  the  faith  of  which  he  now  made  havoc  he  must 
see  Jesus,  not  in  a  spiritual  vision  but  in  the  flesh 
(I  Cor.  9:1). 

The  empty  tomb  also  remains  an  objection  to  the 
theory  of  Keim,  even  as  to  that  of  Renan.  If  the 
tomb  was  emptied,  who  did  it?  Neither  the  friends 
nor  the  enemies  of  Jesus  had  any  inducement  to  carry 
away  His  corpse ;  and  for  a  third  party,  neither  friend 
nor  foe,  to  rifle  the  tomb,  would  be  contrary  to  the  deep 
reverence  which  the  Jews  felt  for  the  dead.  Keim 
doubts  that  the  tomb  was  empty.  But  if  the  body  of 
Jesus  still  slumbered  there,  the  early  Christians,  who 
had  their  headquarters  in  Jerusalem,  would  have  held 
the  place  most  sacred,  and  visited  it  often;  for  the 
Jews  were  accustomed  to  visit  the  burial-places  of  their 
great  men  and  their  friends.  Tertullian  recognizes  this 
practice  in  his  statement  of  a  sceptical  explanation  cur- 
rent in  his  day,  namely,  that  the  gardener  took  away 
Christ's  body  "  that  his  lettuces  might  come  to  no  harm 
from  the  crowds  of  visitors," — a  most  free  way  of  dis- 
posing of  the  body  of  the  cherished  Lord  of  Joseph  of 
Arimathaea. 

D.    A  Perverted  Apostolic  Statement. 

This  is  the  theory  of  Martineau.  When  the  first 
dismay  was  over,  the  apostles,  who  had  fled  to  Galilee, 
realized  that  such  a  life  as  that  of  Jesus  could  not  be 
terminated  by  death.  Nor  could  such  a  one  as  He  have 
gone  "  like  other  men  into  the  storehouse  of  souls  in  the 
underworld."  They  grew  convinced  that  Jesus,  "  like 
the  two  or  three  great  spirits  that  walked  with  God,  had 


316  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

-     passed  into  the  abodes  of  the  immortal."    They  "  flung 
themselves  with  unreserved  confidence  on  the  faith  that 
Jesus  was  in  heaven  to  die  no  more,  and  accepted  it 
.     as  their  mission  to  spread  this  faith."     In  order  to 
Y  convey  to   others   their  profound   assurance   of   His 
heavenly  life  they  declared  that  they  had  seen  the  risen 
I   Christ,  meaning  by  this  not  visual  but  spiritual  per- 
!   ception.    But  their  hearers,  not  having  the  sarne  faith, 
demanded  more  material  proof;  "  and  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  the  traditions  were  so  molded  as  to  answer 
this  demand."    Thus  there  gradually  grew  up  the  story 
of  Christ's  bodily  resurrection. 

Many  of  the  objections  to  the  previous  theories  hold 
against  this;  and  it  has  others  of  its  own.  Keim 
recognizes  that  nothing  short  of  a  miracle  could  remove 
the  apostles'  despair.  Martineau  thinks  that  faith 
would  do  it,  if  only  the  disciples  were  once  back  in 
Galilee.  Which  is  more  probable?  Again,  if  the  first 
disciples,  when  they  said,  "  We  have  seen  Jesus,"  were 
stating  simply  their  strong  conviction  that  He  still 
lived  and  only  waited  the  Father's  time  to  fulfill  His 
promises, — a  strange  way  of  stating  it, — could  they 
with  honesty  allow  their  hearers  to  suppose  that  they 
were  testifying  to  a  physical  resurrection  ?  And  where 
did  the  very  early  and  strong  belief  arise  that  He  rose 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week?  It  took  centuries  for 
Christians  to  settle  upon  Christmas  as  the  anniversary 
of  His  birth,  but  in  a  very  few  years  they  began  to 
keep  Sunday  as  the  anniversary  of  His  resurrection. 
Why  such  prompt  selection  of  a  special  resurrection 
day  unless  the  statement  that  Jesus  rose  on  the  third 
day  (I  Cor.  15:4)  was  a  literal  fact? 

It  is  also  hard  to  understand  why  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  observed  daily  by  the  early 


THE  RESURRECTION  317 

Christian  church,  although  the  Passover  meal  was  an 
annual  celebration,  unless  the  example  and  teaching  of 
Jesus  after  the  resurrection  caused  the  change?  He 
was  made  known  at  Emmaus  in  the  breaking  of  bread 
(Luke  24 :  35)  ;  Peter  tells  that  He  ate  and  drank  with 
the  apostles  after  He  rose  from  the  dead  (Acts  10. 
41);  and  many  scholars  translate  Acts  1:4  "eating 
with  them,"  instead  of  "  being  assembled  with  them." 
All  these  statements  imply  that  Jesus  after  the  resur- 
rection repeatedly  celebrated  the  Eucharist  with  His 
disciples ;  in  which  case  we  have  the  simplest  explana- 
tion of  the  change  of  the  celebration  from  an  annual 
to  a  daily  one. 

If  the  stories  of  the  resurrection  appearances  are 
"  the  product  of  the  mythopoeic  energy  of  religious 
imagination  "  aroused  in  the  way  Martineau  supposes, 
or  in  any  other  way,  why  are  they  so  brief  and  sober 
and  in  such  harmony  with  the  previous  history  of 
Jesus?  The  excited  imagination  of  a  credulous  age 
heaps  up  marvels,  and  betrays  itself  by  absurdities ;  and 
no  theme  would  more  surely  call  forth  such  treatment 
than  the  return  of  Jesus  from  the  dead.  The  Gospel  of 
Nicodemus  and  the  recently  discovered  fragment  of  the 
Gospel  of  Peter  are  evidence  of  this.  The  latter  thus 
describes  the  resurrection  as  it  was  witnessed  by  the 
soldiers  who  guarded  the  tomb :  "  They  see  three  men 
coming  forth  from  the  tomb,  and  two  of  them  support- 
ing one,  and  a  cross  following  them.  And  of  the  two 
the  head  reached  unto  the  heaven,  but  the  head  of  him 
that  was  led  by  them  overpassed  the  heavens.  And 
they  heard  a  voice  from  the  heavens,  saying,  Hast  thou 
preached  to  them  that  sleep?  And  a  response  was 
heard  from  the  cross,  Yea."  No  great  acumen  is 
needed  to  detect  the  difference  in  character  between 


818  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

such  stories  as  this  and  the  gospel  accounts:  and  the 
difference  forms  a  strong  argument  for  the  truthful- 
ness of  the  evangelists. 

Those  who  behold  in  the  earthly  years  of  Jesus 
a  clear  manifestation  of  "  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten 
from  the  Father  "  find  no  difficulty  in  accepting  the 
fact  of  His  resurrection.  His  victory  over  death  is 
perfectly  credible  because,  as  Peter  said  on  the  Day 
of  Pentecost,  "  It  was  not  possible  that  he  should  be 
holden  of  it."  For  those  who  see  in  His  life  nothing 
beyond  the  possibilities  of  a  consecrated  human  spirit, 
belief  must  be  much  more  difficult.  And  yet,  the  testi- 
mony of  the  disciples  cannot  be  contemptuously  dis- 
missed, unless  a  fully  satisfactory  answer  can  first  be 
given  to  the  question,  "-Why  is  it  judged  incredible 
with  you,  if  God  doth  raise  the  dead?  "  (Acts  26:  8). 
And  a  fair  treatment  of  the  testimony  may,  we  be- 
lieve, produce  the  conclusion  reached  by  Arnold  of 
Rugby :  "  I  have  been  used  for  many  years  to  study 
the  history  of  other  times,  and  to  examine  and  weigh 
the  evidence  of  those  who  have  written  about  them; 
and  I  know  of  no  fact  in  the  history  of  mankind 
which  is  proved  by  better  and  fuller  evidence  of  every 
sort  to  the  understanding  of  a  fair  enquirer  than  the 
great  sign  which  God  has  given  us,  that  Christ  died  and 
rose  again  from  the  dead." 

3.    Importance  of  the  Resurrection. 

Jesus  appeared  to  none  except  His  disciples.  It  was 
useless  to  appear  to  others.  The  Pharisees,  even  if 
convinced  that  He  had  risen  from  the  dead,  would 
be  only  the  more  sure  that  He  was  a  son  of  Beelzebub, 
and  would  fear  and  hate  Him  accordingly.  And  the 
common  people,  greatly  excited,  would  again  expect  a 


THE  RESURRECTION  319 

political,  sensuous  kingdom.  Indeed,  the  disciples 
themselves  were  roused  to  expect  this  (Acts  i:6). 
The  spiritual  belief  which  Jesus  demanded  could  not 
be  created  by  a  miracle, — not  even  by  that  of  rising 
from  the  dead. 

The  repeated  appearances  to  the  disciples  seem  to 
have  been  intended  to  teach  them  two  most  important 
truths,  each  hard  to  be  grasped  and  scarcely  to  be 
taught  in  any  other  way;  first,  that  Jesus  had  tri- 
umphed over  death  and  was  still  their  living  Lord 
and  Master  just  as  before  the  crucifixion, — this  was 
realized  when  they  saw  Him  once  more  in  their  midst 
sharing  their  life  as  in  the  days  of  old;  and  second, 
that  when  He  was  no  longer  to  be  seen  by  their  eyes 
or  touched  by  their  hands,  still  He  was  ever  with  them 
to  help  and  teach  and  guide  as  before, — this  was  im- 
pressed upon  them  by  the  repeated  appearances  and 
disappearances.  Whenever  they  specially  longed  for 
Him,  or,  perhaps,  when  they  were  thinking  least  about 
him, — at  any  moment  and  anywhere, — their  Master 
might  appear,  coming  in  His  old  form,  resuming  at 
once  the  old  relations;  and  then,  when  He  had  given 
them  the  teaching  or  the  consolation  they  needed,  sud- 
denly He  would  vanish,  leaving  them  once  more  alone. 
Increasingly  they  came  to  believe  that  they  were  never 
alone, — ^that  He  was  with  them  though  they  saw  Him 
not.  And  so  at  last,  when  He  ascended  to  His  Father, 
the  disciples  did  not  feel  that  they  were  forsaken  or 
that  He  was  false  to  His  promise  to  be  with  them 
always  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  The  ascension 
brought  no  sad  sense  of  separation.  On  the  contrary, 
they  "  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  great  joy ;  and  were 
continually  in  the  temple,  praising  and  blessing  God." 

Concerning  the  body  of  Jesus  during  these  forty 


320  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

days  we  can  only  say  that  it  was  suited  for  this  special 
stage  of  His  work.  It  was  the  same  body  which 
Joseph  of  Arimathaea  and  Nicodemus  had  placed  in  the 
tomb,  with  the  marks  of  the  nails  and  the  spear  still 
evident.  Yet  it  was  a  body  that  could  appear  and  dis- 
appear at  will,  enter  a  closed  room,  and  the  like.  It 
was  not  a  spiritual  body, — so  Jesus  Himself  said 
(Luke  24:39);  and  the  statement,  frequently  made, 
that  it  became  more  spiritual  in  the  later  appearances, 
lacks  proof.  Yet  evidently  it  was  not  a  body  like  our 
own,  or  else  the  power  Jesus  had  over  it  was  far  beyond 
any  we  know.  With  our  present  ideas  of  matter,  the 
act  of  making  a  material  body  vanish  does  not  seem 
as  impossible,  save  by  a  miracle,  as  it  did  formerly. 
"  It  would  seem,"  says  Swete,  "  that  even  in  His  mor- 
tal state  the  Lord  possessed  some  peculiar  power  of 
withdrawing  His  visible  presence  when  He  desired  to 
do  so.  At  Nazareth,  when  the  townsfolk  sought  to 
throw  Him  over  a  precipice,  *  passing  through  the 
midst  of  them  he  went  his  way  '  (Luke  4 :  30).  After 
the  miracle  at  Bethesda  '  Jesus  conveyed  himself  away, 
a  multitude  being  in  the  place  '  (John  5  :  13).  When  in 
the  temple  court  the  Jews  took  up  stones  to  cast  at  Him, 
'  he  hid  himself,  and  went  out  of  the  temple  '  (John 
8  :  59).  Such  incidents  suggest  that  before  the  Passion 
the  Lord's  sinless  human  will  possessed  a  power  over 
His  body  which  is  wholly  beyond  our  experience  or 
comprehension.  Of  the  conditions  to  which  His  risen 
body  was  subject  we  know  nothing;  but  it  may  well 
have  been  yet  more  completely  under  the  control  of  the 
will.  No  presumption,  then,  against  the  reality  of  the 
resurrection  can  fairly  be  based  on  the  statement  that 
the  risen  Christ  made  Himself  visible  or  invisible  at 
pleasure." 


THE  RESURRECTION  321 

The  importance  of  the  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus  is 
not  the  same  to  us  as  it  was  to  the  disciples.  We  do 
not  need  the  evidence  which  Thomas  demanded  to 
establish  our  faith  in  His  triumph  over  death;  rather, 
we  can  claim  as  our  own  the  last  of  His  beatitudes, 
"  Blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen  and  yet  believed  " 
(John  20:29).  For  nineteen  centuries  the  Christian 
church  has  been  conscious  of  His  constant  presence;  in 
fact,  the  church  is  the  present  body  of  Christ.  Nor  is 
the  evidence  of  the  forty  days  the  great  foundation  of 
belief  in  His  divinity.  To  modernize  His  own  state- 
ment (Luke  16:  31),  if  men  will  not  accept  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  nor  regard  the  lives  of  His  followers, 
neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  it  is  proved  that 
He  rose  from  the  dead.  Like  all  evidence  from 
miracles,  the  resurrection  convinces  only  those  who  are 
willing  to  be  convinced.  If  one  holds  that  Jesus  was 
only  an  ordinary  man,  no  amount  of  evidence  can  make 
the  gospel  story  credible;  the  sceptic  may  be  silenced 
but  he  is  not  convinced.  "  When  I  am  told  that  to  be 
a  disciple,  I  must  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  I 
invert  the  order  and  reply,  to  believe  that  Jesus  is  risen 
and  lives  the  heavenly  life,  I  must  be  His  disciple  " 
(Martineau).  But  to  say  all  this,  is  not  to  say  that  the 
question  of  the  resurrection  is  of  little  practical  value. 
The  historical  truth  of  this  part  of  His  life  involves  the 
truth  of  the  whole  story  of  His  life.  And  our  assur- 
ance that  "  now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead  "  forms 
the  basis  of  our  confidence  that  "  even  so  them  also 
that  are  fallen  asleep  in  Jesus  will  God  bring  with  him," 
The  full  significance  of  His  resurrection  in  Christian 
doctrine  is  a  subject  too  great  to  enter  upon.  "  The 
economy  which  begins  with  a  physical  incarnation 
naturally  and  appropriately  ends  with  a  physical  resur- 


r/ 


322  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

rection.     This  much  we  can  see  though  we  may  feel 
that  this  is  not  all  "  (Sanday). 

4.   The  Ministry  of  the  Forty  Days. 

We  are  so  interested  in  the  fact  and  the  form  of  the 
resurrection  appearances  that  often  we  fail  to  reaUze 
and  appreciate  the  ministry  of  Jesus  when  He  thus 
appeared  to  His  disciples.  We  deal  with  His  training 
of  the  Twelve  as  if  it  ended  at  Calvary.  But  by  so 
doing  we  omit  what  must  have  been  the  most  profitable 
period  of  all  their  intercourse  with  Him, — the  period 
when  at  last  their  eyes  were  opened,  and  they  knew 
Him  to  be  their  Lord  and  their  God.  That  Jesus 
looked  forward  to  it  as  a  time  of  richest  instruction  in 
spiritual  truth  is  shown  by  His  statement  at  the  Last 
Supper,  "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but 
ye  cannot  bear  them  now,"  followed  by  His  promise, 
"  The  hour  cometh  when  I  shall  no  more  speak  unto 
you  in  dark  sayings,  but  shall  tell  you  plainly  of  the 
Father"  (John  16:  12,  25).  Up  to  the  hour  of  His 
death  He  had  been  hindered  in  teaching  His  disciples 
by  their  apathy  and  lack  of  spiritual  apprehension, 
which  seemed  sometimes  to  try  Him  almost  beyond  en- 
durance (Mark  8:17;  9:19;  14:37).  And  a  still 
greater  hindrance  was  the  fact  that  He  could  not  place 
before  them  His  whole  life-work  because  it  was  not 
yet  accomplished.  Now  both  these  hindrances  were 
removed;  and  He  was  able  to  teach  the  full  lesson  of 
His  life  to  pupils  eager  and  sympathetic. 

The  forty  days  were  for  the  disciples  a  period  of 
great  emotional  uplift.  Their  utter  despair  had  been 
turned  into  joy, — a  joy  not  to  be  taken  from  them; 
and  in  the  flood  of  emotions  the  words  of  Jesus  reached 
their  hearts  as  never  before   (Luke  24:32).     The 


THE  RESURRECTION  323 

period  was,  also,  one  of  great  intellectual  activity.  .The 
startling  facts  of  the  cross,  the  tomb  and  the  resur- 
rection roused  their  minds  to  review  the  whole  past; 
and  in  that  review  everything  stood  forth  in  a  new 
light,  so  that,  concerning  many  an  act  of  Jesus,  His 
promise  found  fulfillment,  "  What  I  do  thou  knowest 
not  now,  but  thou  shalt  know  hereafter  "  (John  13:7). 
With  the  revelation  of  Jesus  as  a  Messiah  far  other  and 
grander  than  they  had  dreamed,  there  came  a  revela- 
tion of  what  He  had  been  striving  to  accomplish  in  His 
ministry.  "  Many  hints  and  sayings  of  His  which  they 
had  scarcely  noticed  or  had  misunderstood,  now  came 
back  to  memory  and  fitted  into  their  places  in  the  new 
universe  of  ideas  which  was  shaping  itself  in  their 
consciousness.  They  now  began  to  know  their  Master 
after  the  spirit;  and  though  they  had  known  Him  after 
the  flesh,  they  now  henceforth  knew  Him  so  no  more  " 
(Stalker).  It  was  the  beginning  of  the  experience 
which  Jesus  described  when  He  said,  "  The  Comforter, 
even  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in 
my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things  and  bring  to 
your  remembrance  all  that  I  said  unto  you  "  (John 
14:26). 

From  the  Master  Himself  at  this  time  the  disciples 
must  have  received  His  very  richest  teachings.  There 
was  much,  indeed,  for  them  to  learn :  the  meaning  and 
use  of  the  sacraments,  which  they  would  need  at  the 
very  outset  of  their  missionary  work;  the  great  les- 
son of  the  cross,  which  had  just  been  set  before  them ; 
the  mission  of  the  Comforter,  the  Holy  Spirit,  con- 
cerning whom,  as  yet,  they  knew  nothing;  the  nature 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  about  which  they  still  held 
most  imperfect  ideas;  their  own  future  work,  so  dif- 
ferent from  what  they  had  hitherto  imagined.     In- 


324  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST. 

struction  in  these  and  similar  subjects  had  been  prac- 
tically impossible  at  any  earlier  time ;  but  to  understand 
them  was  indispensable,  if  the  apostles  were  to  carry 
the  full  gospel  to  a  waiting  world.  That  Jesus  left 
them  without  instruction  on  the  deepest  things  con- 
cerning Himself  and  His  mission  would  seem  in- 
credible, even  if  the  records  gave  no  evidence  to  the 
contrary.  But  the  evangelists  do  tell  us  of  one  full 
afternoon  spent  by  Him  in  patiently  explaining  to  two 
obscure  disciples  the  Old  Testament  predictions  of  His 
sufferings  and  death  (Luke  24:  13-31);  and  if  these 
received  such  precious  teaching,  what  must  have  been 
given  to  the  apostles? 

Luke  expressly  says  that  the  work  of  Jesus  in  the 
forty  days  was  "  speaking  the  things  concerning  the 
kingdom  of  God"  (Acts  1:3);  but  neither  he  nor 
the  others  have  recorded  more  than  a  few  most  memo- 
rable utterances.  It  may  well  be  that  some  of  Jesus' 
teachings  at  this  time  have  been  grouped  in  the  Gospels 
with  earlier  lessons.  Much  of  the  instructions  to  the 
Twelve  when  they  were  sent  on  their  first  missionary 
journey  (Matt.  10:5  f.)  are  wholly  unsuited  to  that 
occasion  but  might  fitly  have  been  given  now.  The 
discourse  at  Capernaum  (John  6:26f.)  has  a  clear 
connection  with  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper; 
and  portions  of  it  would  seem  to  be  additions  from 
what  Jesus  said  when  He  unveiled  the  meaning  of  that 
sacrament  after  His  resurrection.  Possibly,  also,  we 
are  told  but  little  about  the  teachings  of  the  forty  days 
because  the  whole  teaching  of  the  apostles  was  consid- 
ered to  be  a  reproduction  of  it.  One  thing  is  certain, 
we  cannot  account  for  the  sermon  of  Peter  at  Pente- 
cost and  all  the  words  and  work  of  the  apostles  in 
the  crowded  ministry  that  immediately  followed,  unless 


THE  RESURRECTION  325 

we  suppose  that  Jesus  gave  His  disciples  far  deeper 
and  richer  spiritual  instruction  than  what  they  were 
ready  to  receive,  or  what  was  prepared  to  present  to 
them,  before  His  death  and  resurrection.  The  Pente- 
costal baptism  did,  indeed,  bestow  power  for  witness 
bearing ;  but  the  truths  to  which  they  bore  witness  must 
have  been  imparted  by  their  Master  after  the  cross 
had  crowned  His  work. 

To  ignore  the  ministry  of  the  forty  days  is  to  leave 
an  inexplicable  break  between  the  gospel  of  Jesus  and 
the  gospel  of  the  apostles.  From  it  arises  the  frequent 
assertion  that  the  Christ  whom  the  apostles  proclaimed 
was  a  conception  of  their  own,  fashioned  from  other 
sources  than  the  teachings  of  the  Master  about  Him- 
self. If  we  end  our  study  of  the  life  of  Jesus  at  the 
tomb  in  the  garden,  and  begin  our  study  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Age  with  a  denial  that  the  stone  was  ever  rolled 
away  from  the  tomb,  the  assertion  seems  well  founded ; 
the  Christ  of  Paul,  "  who  was  declared  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  with  power  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead," 
becomes  a  figure  of  Paul's  own  theological  invention; 
and  the  cross  is  simply  a  symbol  of  unmerited  suffering. 
The  scholars  who  support  this  view  are  urgent  in  their 
insistence  that  to  know  what  Christianity  really  is,  we 
must  go  back  to  Christ;  but,  as  Stalker  points  out, 
"  The  attempt  being  made  in  our  day  to  go  back  to 
Christ  in  the  sense  of  making  Christianity  consist  solely 
of  what  Jesus  did  and  taught  in  the  days  before  His 
burial — with  the  resurrection  left  out — is  a  return  to 
the  position  of  the  disciples  in  the  days  of  their  igno- 
rance, if  not  to  that  of  the  enemies  by  whom  He  was 
crucified." 


326  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST 

5.    Conclusion. 

The  story  of  Jesus  must  be  a  story  without  an  end. 
When  we  have  reached  the  point  where  the  gospel  nar- 
rative ceases,  we  have  finished  only  the  first  chapter  in 
it.  Luke  grasped  this  fact,  and  wrote  as  the  opening 
words  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  "  The  former  treatise  I 
made,  O  Theophilus,  concerning  all  that  Jesus  began 
both  to  do  and  to  teach,  until  the  day  in  which  he  was 
received  up."  The  work  of  Jesus  while  He  tabernacled 
in  the  flesh  was  but  the  beginning  of  a  work  that  He 
was  still  continuing,  through  the  ministry  of  His  faith- 
ful servants  and  by  His  own  unseen  presence,  at  the 
time  when  Luke  was  writing.  And  the  work  is  yet  in 
progress,  and  the  story  is  still  incomplete.  The  future 
chapters  remain  to  be  revealed  and  recorded.  How 
many  there  may  be,  and  what  they  will  contain,  v.'e 
cannot  even  surmise.  But  we  do  know  that  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  in  our  midst  and  the  Son  of  Man  is 
upon  its  throne ;  and  we  also  know  that  "  he  must  reign 
till  he  hath  put  all  his  enemies  under  his  feet " ;  and 
"  when  he  shall  have  abolished  all  rule  and  all  authority 
and  power;  when  he  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to 
God,  even  the  Father;  then  cometh  the  end  "  (I  Cor. 
i5:24f.). 


INDEX 


Advent,  Second,  226 
Annas,  285 
Apocalypses,  34,  42 
Apostles,  Choice  of,  134 
Apostles,  Mission  of,  146 
Archelaus,  17 
Ascension  of  Jesus,  308 

Baptism,  John's,  78f. 
Baptism  of  Jesus,  82f, 
Bartimaeus,  247 
Bethany,  Feast  at,  248 
Bethesda,  Miracle  at,  197 
Birth  of  Jesus,  44f. 
Blasphemy,  Charge  of,  138 
Border  Ministry,  iQof. 
Boyhood  of  Jesus,  S/f. 
Brethren  of  Jesus,  60,  70,  209 
Buddha  legends,  49 

Cana,  Miracles  at,  io6f.,  121 
Capernaum,  Discourse  in,  151 
Census  by  Quirinius,  53 
Church  and  Kingdom,  187 
Coinage  of  Jews,  18 
Cross,  Lessons  about,  20Sf. 
Crucifixion  of  Jesus,  29if. 

Date  of  Jesus'  birth,  53 
Death  of  Jesus  inevitable,  125 
Decapolis,  194 
Dedication,  Feast  of,  24of. 
Demoniacal  possession,  i67f. 
Diabolism,  Charge  of,  141 
Disciples  of  Jesus,  103 

Education,  Jewish,  62 
Elizabeth,  44 
Ephraim,  246 

Eschatology  of  Jesus,  226f. 
Essenes,  44,  75 

Fasting,  37,  140 
Feasts  of  Jews,  29 


Fig  tree,  Cursing  of,  255 
Five  thousand  fed,  150,  166 
Forty  Days,  Ministry  of,  322 
Four    thousand    fed,    195 

Galilean  Ministry,  I27f. 

Galilee,  68,  127 

Genealogies  of  Jesus,  47 

Gethsemane,  273 f. 

God,  Jewish  ideas  of,  35 

Golgotha,  292 

Greeks,  request  of,  261 

Herod  Antipas,  17,  289 
Herod  the  Great,  15 
Herodiane,  20 
Homes,  Jewish,  59 

Jericho,  Miracle  at,  247 

John  the  Baptist,  72f.,  85,  100, 

144,  147 
Joseph,  59,  67 
Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  297 
Judas    Iscariot,    136,    264,    270, 

278,  279f. 
Judea,  no 
Judean  Ministry,  iiof. 

King,  Jesus  a,  216 
Kingdom  of  God,  I74f. 

Language  of  Jesus,  63 
Law,  Jewish,  36f. 
Lazarus,  244 

Loaves,  Miracles  of,  150,  166 
Lord's  Supper,  316 

Maccabees,  14 

Man  born  blind,  242 

Mary,   Mother  of  Jesus,  44f., 

108,  294 
Mary  Magdalene,  249,  300,  311 
Mary  of  Bethany,  209,  249 
Messiahship     of     Jesus,     87f., 

2I3f. 


327 


328 


INDEX 


Messiah  and  Miracles,  159 
Messianic  hopes,  39!.,  gsi. 
Messianic  kingdom,  lyOi. 
Miracles,  129,  i54f. 
Mission  of  the  Twelve,  146 

Nathanael,  104 

Nazareth,  syi. 

Nazareth,  Jesus  rejected  at,  145 

Nicodemus,  116,  211,  297 

Palestine,  I4f. 
Parables,  143,  240 
Passion  week,  251  f. 
Passover,  266f. 
Paul,  3i3f. 
Peraea,  232 

Peraean   Ministry,  232f. 
Peter,  I99f.,  301,  305 
Pharisees,  21  f.,  37,  153 
Pilate,  Pontius,  287f. 
Portents  at  Jesus'  death,  296 
Priests,  27f.,  112 
Procurators,  17 
Prophet,  Jesus  a,  214 
Publicans,  18 

Quirinius,  Census  of,  53 

Raising  of  Lazarus,  244 
Resurrection  of  Jesus,  299f. 
Resurrection,    Teaching    after 
the,  322 


Sabbath,  Jewish,  36 
Sabbath-breaking     by 
i4of. 


Jesus, 


Sadducees,  24,  iir,  245,  259 
Samaria,  20 
Samaritan  religion,  42 
Samaritan  woman,  119 
Sanhedrin,  19,  123,  197 
Sanhedrin,    Jesus    before    the, 

284f. 
Seventy,  Mission  of  the,  237 
Sinlessness  of  Jesus,  69 
Son  of  David,  216 
Son  of  God,  219 
Son  of  Man,  22if. 
Supper,  The  Last,  26sf. 
Sychar,  120 
Synagogues,  3of. 
Syro-Phoenician  woman,  193 

Tabernacles,  Feast  of,  209f. 
Taxes,  Roman,  18 
Temple,  26f. 

Temple,  Boy  Jesus  in  the,  64 
Temple,  Cleansing  of,  iif.,  256 
Temptation  of  Jesus,  91  f. 
Thomas,  304 
Transfiguration,  202f. 
Trial  of  Jesus,  283f. 
Triumphal  entry,  251 

Unnamed  Feast,  195 

Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus,  44f. 

Zacchaeus,  247 
Zacharias,  72 
Zealots,  20 


Date  Due 


't* 


BS2420.H648 
The  life  of  Christ, 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00013  0452 


